Political homelessness as a strength
Political homelessness on the rise. It’s a term that refers to people who feel alienated from politics and parties, believing their worldview is not being represented in the current offerings of candidates and platforms.
The exact percentage of people who identify this way can be hard to pin down, because of an overwhelming pressure to cast a vote in one direction or another regardless of how detestable you find the options. But finding yourself in this situation is not the end. It’s also not “callous and detached.” It can certainly head in that direction. But political homelessness allows people to assess their options with a new sobriety.
To start with, politically homeless people have standards, as all people do. These standards show up in dating, honesty, work ethic, food, and so on. But it seems that this kind of thinking is rarely applied to politics.
Before you read a party platform or watch an interview with a political leader, it can be helpful to have in mind what you would have to hear in order to be satisfied. You should hold that standard steadfastly. Maybe you were looking for a clear answer on how a political leader will handle health services. Consider what would be ideal for you to hear, as well as what seems realistic and within reach (after all, these are politicians). Never depart from this. No amount of charisma or sloganeering should sway you.
If you do not get the answer that satisfies you, you disagree. If enough of these issues rack up with which you disagree, that person has not earned your vote. You’ll consider other candidates, and if you find the same issues, refuse or spoil your ballot. People who are politically homeless are engaging with ideas like this all the time. Political parties are inviting them in. Standards simply prohibit us from answering the call.
In the mind of a politically homeless voter, who may flutter among political parties, trying them on for size, spoiling and refusing ballots, there is actually a deeper hope. If enough people engaged the way we do, with strict standards in mind, this strategy would gather a critical mass. Imagine for a moment if 5% of voters in the latest US election, having these standards in mind, spoiled their ballot, dissatisfied with the choices (you cannot legally decline a ballot in the US).
In Ontario, Canada, refused (or declined) ballots are officially counted in the same way as votes, unlike spoiled ballots (where in frustration you scribble some profanity on the ballot, and it’s promptly discarded). It's a system that should be adopted at every level of government around the world.
But in the US, people could tell exit polls and every reporter in sight that they wrote in "none of the above," even though they are aware it has zero standing.
If 5% of the electorate indicated that they did this, it would be a wakeup call to all politicians. The electorate is screaming that none of these candidates are worthy, and instead of staying home, they have gone out of their way to make that fact known.
What would all of this new room in the political discussion produce? Imagine the process of tending a forest. Left uncared for, with no standards, it becomes a mess. Worse, it becomes extremely flammable. Single sparks can set off huge chain reactions and overreactions. It now seems that we have crises and disasters every day, and the flames have made it hard to breathe.
We must escape from perpetual fires. They’re not keeping anyone warm.
But let’s say we come up with standards for how the forest will be maintained. When deadwood falls, we clear it up, in order to leave room for new growth. Political homelessness, if applied in a constructive way, leaves room for new political ideas to try their hand, and gives politically homeless people more power to pressure parties to adjust to what they’re looking for. That is, if people go out of their way to make their voice heard. Staying on the couch on election day solves nothing.
Political homelessness can sound like giving up. I’d suggest that it can be the complete opposite. For how many elections have people put up with the phrase “choose the lesser of two evils.” I do not choose evil. Politically homeless people are not comfortable with choosing evil.
If you are dissatisfied with a party, and vote for them, it counts for one vote. If you enthusiastically support a party, and vote for them, it counts for one vote. Showing dissatisfaction in new ways, especially by making a show of spoiling or declining ballots, is a start towards building a new, more representative politics.
