Complete Book of Everyday Christianity
An A-Z guide to following Christ in every aspect of Life. Here in one book, is the complete guide you need for every part of your life—family, money, relationships, job, church, entertainment and more. The editors, Robert Banks and R. Paul Stevens, combine decades of ministry, scholarship, church leadership, parenting, and other sorts of practical wisdom.VOTING
There are many kinds of voting. In some churches members elect their elders, deacons or other leaders. Many voluntary organizations elect officers and boards of directors. Labor organizations typically elect leaders. Mom and Dad may even ask their children to vote on where they would like to eat or go for vacation. While all these forms of voting reflect the importance we attach to human expression, participation and responsibility, each represents a different meaning, depending on the nature of the institution or organization in which the voting takes place. In this article we will primarily explore the significance of voting in a political election.
The History of the Popular Vote
In regards to politics the popular vote was a long time in coming. Not until the twentieth century did women win the right to vote (the franchise) in the United States. Not long before that only males who owned property were allowed to vote. The electoral process in political life arose as part of the movement toward accountable government. Autocratic monarchs and aristocrats, particularly when they claimed to rule by divine right, argued that their sovereignty required their independence. If they were restricted by others, their rule would not be the exercise of real authority. The monarchs who acknowledged God’s supremacy argued that it was sufficient for them to be accountable to God. Under these aristocracies and monarchies the responsibility of the subject was to submit to the aristocrat’s or monarch’s rule, not to interfere with it.
Feudal lords and then monarchs of various kinds gradually found themselves hemmed in by lower magistrates and aristocrats who demanded (at times even voted) that the monarch meet certain of their requirements before they would pay taxes or raise an army for the ruler. This process was extended to the point at which legislatures were eventually established to advise and give consent on the ruler’s lawmaking. What, in fact, was happening was that the public realm (the res publica, from which we get our word republic) was gradually being distinguished from the private possessions of feudal lords, aristocrats and monarchs. The governance of all subjects was being recognized as a responsibility. Voting became one of the chief tools used by those who were governed to exercise responsibility in holding the executive authority accountable to the public and for the public good. That form of advice and consent eventually became the lawmaking responsibility of the governing process-the legislative branch of government.
Parliaments or congresses or legislatures were created even where monarchs continued to rule. In the United States the revolutionary patriots rejected a monarchy and set up a president (and, in the states, governors) to perform the executive duties of government. Legislative bodies became the primary locus of popular representation, and for that to work an electoral process was critical. The right to vote meant that a citizen was allowed to exercise some responsibility in the governing process by choosing representatives and holding them accountable.
The Meaning of the Vote
What happens, what power or authority is transferred, when a citizen votes for a representative? From the beginning of the modern electoral process this question of representation has been critical. One interpretation of the vote is that voters are acting to choose the persons most qualified to act independently as legislators or executives. Somewhat like elders or deacons in a church, the elected representatives are seen as entering an office that has a prior definition of responsibility. Once in office the representative is supposed to make his or her own decisions based on the best possible reasoning and deliberation, independent of any pressure from voters.
Another view of the electoral process is that the elected representative is chosen to stand in the place of the voters. The representative serves as the voice of the voters; he or she is supposed to reproduce the wishes of the voters, who would be governing themselves if they could all gather together to do so. Obviously, in this case the office of the representative is merely to speak for the voters, in contrast to the first view in which the representative holds an office of government that has its own requirements for deliberation and judgment independent of the voters.
Voting as Public Discipleship
While these details may sound insignificant and even unimportant to Americans, who are notorious for not voting at election time, Christians ought to take a different view of the matter. First, we ought to see political governance and representation as a process whereby officeholders are called to exercise an important God-given responsibility. Voters do not create the offices of government any more than they create the church offices of elders, deacons or bishops. It is not simply that self-governance is a practical impossibility for millions of citizens without representatives; more important is the fact that governance requires decisions that conform to standards of justice. Regardless of how people gain political office, their task is to perform the duties of government, not merely to do what someone else wants them to do or pays them to do.
Second, voting should serve as a means of connecting the government with the governed. The political community-the body politic-belongs to all citizens, not just to those who govern it. Everyone has a stake in it; all share responsibility, whether actively or passively, for its well-being. Voting is an act that fits into the wider meaning of representation, governance and citizenship. So how ought we to understand the importance of voting in this larger context?
An important distinction should be made at this point-one that is not always made in the American political setting. Electing representatives is a different kind of voting process than the one that takes place in a legislative body when laws are being made by legislators. The purpose of voting within a legislative body is to pass laws by drawing the deliberative process to a close. Legislators debate the merits of a proposed law, and when they finally vote for or against a bill, they have to reach a single conclusion. A majority vote is typically required to decide either yes or no on a bill.
Citizens voting in an election to choose their representatives are not legislating or writing laws; they are merely selecting the people who will be empowered to do the legislating. There is no need at election time to reach a single winner-take-all conclusion, no need to reach a yes-or-no conclusion. The purpose of voting for representatives should be to allow the voters actually to choose the people they want to have as their representatives. For this reason I believe we should reexamine the American electoral system, which has a winner-take-all method of choosing representatives. Voting takes place in single-member districts, in which a single winner is chosen. The majority (or plurality) winner is made the representative of everyone who lives in the district. This turns out to be a strange way of choosing representatives because some voters will inevitably be represented by a candidate they opposed, not by the one they voted for. And if the candidate they vote for wins, then their choice cancels out the votes of those who voted for losing candidates. In other words, only the votes for the winner actually succeed in determining the representative. No wonder many people in the United States, Canada, Great Britain and other countries that use this system feel alienated as voters. Their votes often do not count.
A Proposal for the Reform of Voting
A different electoral system, which is used by most democratic countries in the world, does a better job of making votes count. Instead of creating single-member districts, they create multimember districts. Imagine, for a moment, that Illinois has twenty seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. Instead of setting up twenty single-member districts, suppose Illinois were to make the whole state one district and allow many different political parties each to run twenty candidates. Voters would then vote for the party with which they identity. If 40 percent of the voters vote Republican, they would (and should) get 40 percent of Illinois’ House seats-eight seats. If 30 percent vote Democrat, then the Democrats would get six seats. If the Green Party gets 5 percent of the vote, it would get one seat. If the Libertarians get 10 percent of the vote, they would get two seats. The point should be obvious. Citizens would actually be represented by the parties they vote for. Few, if any, votes would not count. Moreover, the election would be successful even if no party got more than 50 percent of the vote. An election need not have a majority winner. At the same time nothing prevents the voters from choosing a majority party. If 85 percent of the voters in Illinois vote Republican, then the Republicans would obviously hold a huge majority of Illinois’ House seats. But that vote should not allow the Republicans to win 100 percent of the seats, as would probably happen under our present system. The purpose of an electoral vote is to give citizens the kind of representation they want in Congress or their state legislature, not to decide whether a bill wins or loses.
Voting in the system I just described (a form of proportional representation used for electing the Upper House in Australia) does a better job of connecting voters with their representatives. Voters get the representatives they want, rather than the ones they vote against. In this system it is typical for political parties to be stronger and to exercise more discipline over their candidates. This helps to overcome the power of outside interest groups and the disintegrating effect of lone-ranger candidates winning elections without clear agendas or accountability to the voters.
Voting should be the means by which citizens gain representation and hold their representatives accountable. The best way to do that is to make it possible for voters to organize political parties that genuinely reflect their convictions. Elections should be events in which voters are doing more than choosing the lesser of evils among individual personalities; an election should be the time for voters to choose platforms, broad programs and principles according to which they want representatives to govern. Elections that do not offer this opportunity to voters will carry little meaning. That is one reason why half or more of the eligible voters in the United States do not turn out for elections.
A better electoral system of the kind I have described would also make it easier for voters to decide how to choose among candidates. Today a voter is usually confronted with just two choices-only one of whom will win the race. The Christian voter often faces the difficulty of choosing between the two: for example, what if one candidate is a Christian but his or her stance on many issues is weak or undeveloped or unjust from the Christian voter’s point of view? What should the Christian voter do if the other candidate, though not a Christian, stands on a better platform and has a proven record of public service?
Responsible Voting
Obviously the voter must try to select the better of the two candidates as judged by how they will fill the office. The voter’s decision might be little more than a choice for the lesser of evils, but a vote must be cast. This is where the importance of office comes in. Ideally the Christian voter would expect that Christian candidates should have the best political program, but that is not automatically the case. Imagine, for example, that I as a Christian were to go into farming because I wanted to be a good steward of plants, animals and other resources in order to produce food for people. The problem is that I am not qualified to be a farmer. I know nothing about farming. Just because I am a Christian, I will not necessarily do what is right as a farmer-or as an artist, scientist or public official. Christian voters, in other words, must ask about more than the faith orientation of a candidate for public office; they have to ask how a candidate’s faith orientation is related to his or her qualifications for the job as judged by experience, wisdom, political philosophy, an understanding of many different issues and more. If we had a different kind of electoral system, it would be easier for citizens to compare and judge each party, knowing that the candidates in each party would be bound by that party’s platform and philosophy. Candidates would carry a larger banner and would be under stronger party discipline than is the case today.
Christians should be the kind of citizens who work for real governmental accountability, who become seriously involved in the election of representatives and who help push public officials (elected and unelected) to do justice. The voting system has a lot to say about how well citizens can achieve these aims. Electoral reform that can make voting more meaningful may be an urgent priority for Christians in the decades ahead.
References and Resources
D. Amy, Real Choices/New Voices (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993); P. Marshall, Thine Is the Kingdom (Basingstoke, U.K.: Marshalls, 1984); J. W. Skillen, Recharging the American Experiment: Principled Pluralism for Genuine Civic Community (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994); J. W. Skillen, “Toward Just Representation: A Proposal for Revitalizing Our System of Political Participation” (pamphlet published by the Association for Public Justice, Washington, D.C.).
-James W. Skillen
Originally published in The Complete Book of Everyday Christianity by Robert Banks and R. Paul Stevens. ©1997 by Robert Banks and R. Paul Stevens. Used by permission of InterVarsity Press, P.O. Box 1400, Downers Grove, IL 60515, USA. www.ivpress.com
Print
Email
