Facebook’s misguided ‘I Voted’ button lets everyone know just who voted and who did not—a stunning form of civic espionage.
When you log on to your Facebook account today, you will be confronted with dozens of digital proclamations flooding in from your friends, family and colleagues that they’ve voted and are damned pleased with themselves for exercising their civic duty. At least they believe it is their civic duty because they’ve been told so from a very young age, being reinforced constantly by others, including, now, Facebook.
The right to vote, however, is a right, not a duty. It is an external expression of a belief in a candidate, an ideology or ballot measure—at least that is what it was intended to be. Now it is merely an expression of a mass delusion that the political system is technically functional at best.
The Facebook I Voted button was probably a display of the companies best intentions—a simple desire to connect voters in an intimate albeit digital way for the midterm elections—to expand their database of social connections. Perhaps they should have thought of the various ways in which it is a bad idea. Let us count the ways:
What if a person (let’s not use the word ‘voter’) doesn’t feel represented by the field of candidates? We know that the usual choices are either Republican or Democrat, and we know there are nominal third-party candidates in various districts, but many people don’t identify with any of them. These people won’t be voting. And if a person’s ideology means they won’t be voting, how does the ‘I Voted’ button truly represent them as a person? And doesn’t the button create a mechanism for those who did vote to guilt others on election day?
What of all the people who believe the two-party system is a sleight-of-hand that allows power structures to exist relatively risk-free while citizens argue over partisan issues, losing themselves in one grand diversionary tactic? For these people, an “I Voted” declaration is as meaningless as it is insulting. The choice is either a Republican or Democrat, maybe a Green or Reform party candidate. But, the majority of people vote for either Republicans or Democrat, so the “I Voted” button signifies that a Facebook user has voted to maintain the system—broken as it is.
If Facebook truly wanted to connect all of its users, they might have considered contacting me first. I would have offered the following lists of possible buttons to satisfy the range of political opinions:
“I Didn’t Vote”
“I Didn’t Vote, Fuck You”
“Ask Me Why I Didn’t Vote’
“Goldman Sachs Didn’t Get My Vote, How Bout You?”
“Tell Me, How Have Your Past Votes Worked Out for You?”
“Sittin’ This One Out, Folks”
“I Don’t Need a Representative to Create Change in My Community”
“I Voted for Change in 2008 and Wall Street Walked Free”
For all the noise Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook have made about not wanting to hand their creation over to the old boys’ club, they’ve certainly played right into their hands by reinforcing the status quo.
How you conduct yourself on election day is nobody’s business but your own.
November 02, 2010 at 4:13 pm, justEn said:
Woot.
November 02, 2010 at 6:57 pm, Marci said:
I hate to comment on your opinions in a negative way, but seriously…who cares?
People who voted and are proud, click the button. People who don't want to, don't. So get over it. It's not that big of a deal.
November 02, 2010 at 7:26 pm, D. J. Pangburn said:
If you don't care, why did you take the time to type a comment?
I'm simply offering up a thought experiment. If you don't like the implications of the thought experiment, get over it… it's not that big of a deal.
November 03, 2010 at 7:20 pm, S. R. Currie said:
She likely took the time because she DOES care that your article railed against a nigh-innocuous element in an only mildly pertinent medium of communication (Facebook). Why fire back at your readers for posting comments on your work? Getting a bit defensive, are we?
I must say that I agree with her sentiment. Who cares? I clicked FB's little “I Voted” button just like hundreds of thousands of people yesterday… but I wouldn't have been bothered by others doing so had I not voted. Not voting is a personal choice that carries social consequences in a democracy, and your attempt to stand-up against people's personal pride at fulfilling a civic duty is laughable, at best.
I found this article by accident, and I almost wish that I hadn't. Now I'm forced by my own duty to uphold the underlying principles of democracy… and likely directly to somebody who couldn't care less about those principles. Your own opinion is your sovereign right as a human, but never forget that you have to have the intellectual and factual ammo to back it up.
Your article, as it stands, is fine as a piece of opinion. It's the fact that you jumped down your own reader's throat that I'm appalled at here. Would you rather that Marci had merely ignored you? Would you rather that she had simply chosen to keep her opinion silent? Too bad. You put this up in the public sphere, and she gave enough of a damn about your words, even in disagreement, to make a post.
That should be an honor to any writer, even if the response is negative. At least you seem to have written something worth being responded to.
November 04, 2010 at 6:29 am, D. J. Pangburn said:
I'm not offended by Marci's comment. Quite the contrary, I encourage debate. And since I encourage debate, I naturally value the retort.
The piece was written as a thought experiment. Marci didn't like the implications of the thought experiment and tried to devalue it by being flippant and dismissive. I think a 'I Didn't Vote' button is just as valid as a 'I Voted' button.
I'm not defensive, but merely exercising the right to reply to flippant and dismissive comments in kind.
November 02, 2010 at 7:54 pm, Chris Huff said:
You're correct in saying that voting is a right. Whether or not a person exercises their right to vote is totally up to them. But I also don't see a problem with social pressure to exercise that right, just as I don't see a problem with social pressure to recycle. Is it law? Duty? No, but it's a good idea, and one that I'll encourage others to participate in as much as possible (both recycling and voting).
November 02, 2010 at 8:24 pm, D. J. Pangburn said:
Point taken.
But there are recycling laws, Sir. So you're within you're right to apply social pressure to your fellow man to recycle.
There are no laws for applying social pressure in voting, nor is voting compulsory. So, you have no ground on which to stand in your belief that you can apply social pressure so that others will agree with you on exactly how they should exercise that right.
November 03, 2010 at 7:03 pm, S. R. Currie said:
Even in places where there are recycling laws, people are not fined or otherwise punished for choosing not to recycle. Many places do not even have recycling as a simple option, forcing recyclers to drive hefty distances to recycle portions of their waste. Regardless of the law, recycling must be pushed by everyday people… or it often won't happen.
A similar truth is found with voting in the United States, in that everyday people must push it, or it won't often happen. You say that voting is a right, not a duty, but I reject that narrow thesis. Voting is BOTH a right and a duty within a democratic state. You, as a citizen within a free democracy have the DUTY to uphold the very notion of a democracy… and part of that duty is taking the time to vote.
It doesn't mean that you have to vote on everything. Perhaps there are some races that you simply don't care about. I had a race on my ballot that mattered very little to me, AND I didn't know anything about the two no-name candidates who were running. Needless to say, I didn't vote in that particular race. But, it didn't stop me from upholding my civic duty to vote on races that did affect me and the people whom I care for.
Many responsibilities come with citizenship in a free and democratic state. Informed voting is merely one of those, as it is the general upkeep of any democracy. Revolution is another, should the state turn to tyranny. Like any child, you can ignore your responsibilities all that you want. That is a right of being human. But, you can… and hopefully will, lose face for it. That is the price you pay for being dead weight in OUR (not merely your) country.
November 16, 2010 at 9:15 pm, D. J. Pangburn said:
Sorry for taking my time in getting back to you, S.R. Currie… I'd forgotten about the article.
You state: “You say that voting is a right, not a duty, but I reject that narrow thesis. Voting is BOTH a right and a duty within a democratic state. You, as a citizen within a free democracy have the DUTY to uphold the very notion of a democracy… and part of that duty is taking the time to vote.”
For those who believe in the idea of a healthy democracy–or, rather, a republic–as it exists, the duty thesis would stand. This assumes a healthy political system. If, however, the republic is rejected as as illegitimate (in light of the poisons convulsing its system), and in an advanced state of decay, then people are no longer duty-bound. Those who believe that the duty to vote and the exercise thereof produces any measurable value would be operating under an illusion, and it could therefore be said they weren't of sound mind. We might say they are delusional, crazed, but most definitely fooled.
And so I reject your concept of the duty to vote since its function is meaningless in the current state of politics.
People aren't willing to admit this, and when presented with the revelation, they naturally recoil because to admit the duty to vote is meaningless is to admit their vote is meaningless, which means they are quite powerless–that they lack control. And it's a truism that people cannot handle the idea of not being in control.
You say, “Many responsibilities come with citizenship in a free and democratic state. Informed voting is merely one of those, as it is the general upkeep of any democracy. Revolution is another, should the state turn to tyranny.” The answer to your question is in the last sentence. I shall let you interpret that how you will.
Am I the 'dead weight' or simply the whisper of a terrible truth you're trying desperately to erase from your mind?
The 'dead weight' is the corpse of the republic, re-animated by money and power, and the American people are the cells propelling it forward in a collective spell.
November 02, 2010 at 8:30 pm, facebook-1313653577 said:
Don't the LOVE all the HATE that these RIGHT WING groups spiel out! The tighty whiteys are so afraid of being in minority when voting.
November 02, 2010 at 11:21 pm, Adam said:
Isn't hitting the button pretty much the same as wearing the sticker they give you after you vote? If you want to brag about it, wear the sticker. If you don't want to, don't.
November 03, 2010 at 4:31 am, Kirsten said:
Thumbs down. If the candidates don't represent your desired choices, there are lots of other propositions, judges, attorneys general, education representatives etc. to concern yourself with. NOT voting is just plain giving up. Booo.
November 16, 2010 at 9:18 pm, D. J. Pangburn said:
You're assuming that I see the electoral and legislative processes, as they exist (and have for decades), as legitimate.
November 03, 2010 at 5:36 pm, Top 5 Inventions Since Last Time Jerry Brown was Governor | Death and Taxes said:
[...] 35 years and social networks dominate the web. Barack Obama’s presidential campaign was built on Facebook, Twitter has launched Tea Party candidates into the midterm narrative, and Friendster… well, [...]
November 03, 2010 at 7:14 pm, Anna Vinogradova said:
haha.. Now everyone knows that you feel guilty about not voting. =)
November 04, 2010 at 6:33 am, D. J. Pangburn said:
I don't feel guilty. I feel a great lightness about not buying into the bullshit of either party. There is a great levity in my soul.
Again, I wrote the piece as a thought experiment to get people looking through a new lens.
If that wasn't apparent, then perhaps I failed.
November 05, 2010 at 5:45 pm, How Facebook and Twitter Factored In the Midterm Elections | Death and Taxes said:
[...] Facebook predicted that candidates with more Facebook fans than their opponents would win their races. While they were right in 74% of candidates with more fans did win, the most talked-about races, which should ostensibly get the most attention and therefore have the most fans online, all contradicted the Facebook fan precept. [...]
December 06, 2010 at 11:45 am, Mark Zuckerberg’s Media Training Will Make Your Head Explode | Death and Taxes said:
[...] his public persona, Zuckerberg has become a masterful spinster. Throughout the interview he insists Facebook is “not that big,” and continually downplays its success. When questioned about the [...]