The Meaning of "I Voted" Stickers (One Possibility)

Morning Thoughts #65

Democracy, and specifically its chief rite—voting—legitimizes itself through an assumption of free will. After all, if our voting patterns are ultimately determined by forces beyond our control, it logically follows that the government ruling over us is also subject to external influences. By definition, a democratic society consists of individuals who have a genuine say in how they are governed. When our elected leaders speak, their words are supposed to reflect the "voice of the people." However, for this definition to hold true, we must first assume the inherent (or at least potential) existence of personal sovereignty. In other words, we must believe that each of us possesses the ability to govern our own selves. But what if this assumption isn't actually accurate, or at least not always so?

For one example, let us examine (relatively) recent developments in the administration of criminal justice, which seem to acknowledge the limitations of free will. Society increasingly teaches us to recognize that certain extenuating circumstances can mitigate personal responsibility. A criminal who grew up neglected, mistreated, or impoverished (the argument of environment) or who faces mental health challenges (the insanity defense) tends to be perceived as less responsible for their crime(s) and thus possibly deserving of a more lenient sentence. Today, few would dispute this logic (although they may question its application). However, many may not realize that by accepting these considerations, we essentially undermine the philosophical concept of free will, as any limitations imposed upon the will itself negate its very essence. Consequently, the question of free will becomes inconsequential, akin to deciding whether to piss against or with strong prevailing winds.

"Okay," you might ask, "so what's the connection here? Are you suggesting that Democracy and criminal justice reform (as popularly defined today) are fundamentally at odds with each other?" It is quite possible, but there is a more intriguing and overarching point to be made. Interestingly, those who staunchly support the idea of reduced culpability driving criminal justice reform also tend to be the most fervent advocates of the new-age, predominantly social-media-driven, cult of voting. For these individuals (and this is how I define membership in that "cult"), the significance of the act of voting has been overshadowed by the identity of being a "voter" itself. They incessantly preach that "there is nothing more important you can do than vote," yet they never seem to question how environmental or mental health factors (to cite just the two examples already mentioned) might impact the true freedom of our choices, specifically as relates to voting. In this context, has there been any recent mental or environmental stressor more significant than the widespread adoption of smartphone technology?

The "I voted" sticker, worn as a fashion statement, may signify nothing more than a desperate attempt to cling to a sense of personal sovereignty that individuals have increasingly relinquished, either personally or culturally, over the years. Why has there been a recent resurgence in an almost religious fervor when it comes to the professed belief in the power of voting? Perhaps, for many, it stems from an unconscious suspicion that the concept of free will has become untenable, and that the extent of their personal freedom has been greatly exaggerated. Naturally, such a belief would be profoundly damaging to one's ego, leading a person to try to suppress it from reaching their conscious awareness. In order to compensate for the loss of belief in one’s ability to shape the circumstances of their world and its future, it may be the case that individuals feel more compelled to prominently display stickers proclaiming themselves as possessors of that power.