It’s hard to make a TV ad that is funny while also communicating an important public service message. So well done the Electoral Commission on its mini-drama showing a couple trying to book their holidays – only for a stranger to butt in and put them on a flight to Antarctica.
The moral of the story is clear. If you don’t use your vote, you are giving someone else’s voice greater sway. The commission doesn’t stray beyond that in terms of advising the public. Rightly so. We can’t have an independent oversight body telling you where to put your number one.
Is there a case, however, for further public education, or at least reflection, on how to vote rationally? Put aside party politics for a moment. What criteria should you apply to your decision?
Many commentators – Taoiseach Simon Harris included – have referred to Donald Trump in somewhat snooty terms as a “transactional” politician. Perhaps a bit rich from the Fine Gael leader, given the last budget had a flavour of trying to bribe us with our own money. But the deeper question is whether there’s anything wrong with using your vote in a “transactional” manner? The world’s problems seem so great, isn’t it tempting to use your limited power for something short-term and achievable?
Where can we turn for advice on this, and other moral calculations, before Friday’s vote? Well, philosophy is one source of wisdom. And from its annals, stretching back more than 2,000 years, we can discern three general principles to consider before filling out your ballot paper.
1. Don’t mistake elections for democracy
Democracy started in ancient Athens but elections were a very minor part of it. In fact, public office was generally decided by lottery, allowing citizens to rotate between different political and legal roles. It’s only in the last couple of hundred years that democracy become synonymous with parliamentary elections, cultural historian David Van Reybrouck points out in Against Elections: The Case for Democracy.
“Voting by lot is the nature of democracy; voting by choice is in the nature of aristocracy,” said Montesquieu, the 18th century French legal theorist. Van Reybrouck advocates greater use of sortition, if not in parliaments then through citizens’ assemblies, as well as other measures to improve public participation in politics. He says: “It may not be a popular conclusion but it must be understood that nowadays elections are primitive and a democracy that reduces itself to elections is in mortal decline.”
2. Ask whether you would be embarrassed if your child, or a future citizen, knew how you voted
A principle that is sometimes cited in business ethics is the “mom litmus test”. If you’re tempted to do something that is morally dubious, ask whether you’d be embarrassed if your mother found out.
The Harvard philosopher Michael Sandel has a similar rule: if you feel an act must be kept secret, ask why so – and whether it’s because you realise, deep down, you’re committing an ethical transgression.
In the case of voting, the critical question is not the “mom litmus test” but the “child, or future citizen, litmus test”. What would a loved one, or citizen, from the next generation make of your vote? Would you be embarrassed if they knew exactly your order of preference? How would you justify your vote to them?
3. Happiness is in your power; it is not in the gift of politicians
Aristotle distinguished between pleasure and happiness. Pleasure is fleeting – it’s nice when you have it but it’s no foundation for a life. By happiness, or eudaemonia in Greek, he meant something closer to the modern idea of flourishing, or contentment.
Today, we are all a bit grumpy with the high cost of living and daily inconveniences. So it’s tempting to vote for a politician who promises to make us a bit happier, or at least a little less unhappy. Maybe give us a grant, take a little less tax off us, or scrap some policy that is set to cause us some pain. The most a politician can do, however, is add a bit of pleasure to your life, or reduce a bit of displeasure. He or she cannot make you happy in the Aristotelian sense. Contentment requires a lot more work.
Part of that must be done alone – and one branch of philosophy explores mental or spiritual exercises aimed at achieving fulfilment, or peace. But part of the work is communal – political philosophers from Plato to Marx have examined how human beings are internally torn, or alienated from one another, by societal injustice.
Think for yourself what a just society looks like. Plenty of philosophers have a view on the matter (should you fancy some heavy reading before Friday). But, whatever you do, don’t vote for a politician who is trying to make you happy. Vote for the one who is trying to create a society in which you’d be more contented to live.
- Sign up for push alerts and have the best news, analysis and comment delivered directly to your phone
- Join The Irish Times on WhatsApp and stay up to date
- Listen to our Inside Politics podcast for the best political chat and analysis
- Sign up to our Inside Politics newsletter to get the behind-the-scenes take direct to your inbox