Ida Rosenstein

Sarafidis firmly states that she is “repulsed by the accusation that the decision to not vote for president because of the genocide in Gaza is privileged.” While I similarly find Harris’ position on the genocide in Gaza abhorrent, I strongly disagree with her claim that it is not a privilege to not vote. Underlying this decision is an unspoken statement — the outcome of an election will not substantially affect you. It is a privilege to refuse to vote because a candidate does not perfectly adhere to all of your views. It is a privilege because you can afford to ignore the direct consequences of the election. To not vote in the presidential election because of a single issue is to be complicit in the enactment of other harmful policies that could have been prevented by voting. Sarafidis says that, despite her fears of a Trump presidency, she is not “willing to be complicit in violence abroad.” This statement neglects to consider violence that Trump will enact within the U.S. as well. To not vote for Harris is to accept Trump’s policies in the name of merely declaring moral superiority. It is ignorant of a single truth of American politics: whether or not you vote in an election, one of two people will be elected. Despite our dissatisfaction with the current electoral system, there is no larger movement at this time that makes the act of not voting a form of viable protest. I lament that participation in our democracy is relegated to mere damage control, but this will not be fixed by not voting. The most we can do is actively work to reduce harm and protect others. Passivity will not take power from the government. 

I want to be clear: I wholeheartedly agree with Sarafidis’ advocacy for social justice and an urgent end to the genocide in Gaza. But, frankly, I believe that abstaining from the vote only gives more power to conservatives. Conservatives champion voter suppression laws — laws blocking felons from voting, requiring IDs, gerrymandering, and restricting mail-in ballots are all attempts to suppress the voices of disenfranchised groups. When there are so many efforts made to silence the votes of underprivileged people, the worst thing we can do is to silence ourselves.

Maia Hochheiser 

The right to vote has, for many Americans, been in place for less than a century. For many other Americans, this vote is still hindered — convicts and ex-convicts often can’t vote, and disenfranchisement is rampant. But the basic facts remain: most Americans get to vote. Too many of us take this right for granted, and forget it is not just a hard-fought right but also a privilege and a civic duty. 

Choosing not to vote must be done with intention. And, although I disagree with this decision, I understand that there are reasons to withhold one’s vote. However, an important part of this action is effectively communicating one’s reason for not voting, as the statement of not voting is useless if it can be mistaken for mere apathy. Grace Sarafidis’ take (“Student Stands by Decision not to Vote for Kamala Harris,” The Oberlin Review, Nov. 8, 2024), unfortunately misses this nuance. She misses the point about not voting,  and instead poses half-baked ideas based on pretensions of moral superiority. 

It is justifiable to not vote for Harris as a way to tell Democrats you disagree with their policies. But by not filling in the vote, either as part of an organized movement, like the Uncommitted National Movement, or by voting third party, one’s voice is lost in a sea of apathy. Third-party candidates consistently populate the ballot, knowing they will not win, with the intention of telling the parties that their views are present and supported. Within voting third-party is an effective mechanism demonstrating to the Democrats that you disagree with their policies. But by not voting, you present yourself as another apathetic citizen. Leaving the ballot blank is simply ineffective. 

 Not voting indicates a complete lack of thought about the actual effectiveness of ballot decisions. Even more tragically, it indicates a complete disregard and disrespect for the institution of voting. I will continue to vote, and be proud of my voting — not because I like to feel good about myself, but because I know it is my responsibility, my duty, and my hard-won right. The author of this article has, unwittingly, completely disrespected and ignored the significance of her ability to vote.  Instead of using her vote to make a statement, be it by voting for a third party or joining a movement of disaffected voters, Sarafidis has wasted a right she is lucky to have. Her decision not to vote didn’t make a statement, it just disrespected the monumentality of our fundamental rights and civic duties. 

Lauren Moore

Sarafidis’ article fails to account for the long-lasting impacts of the presidency. A president’s legacy extends past the four years they are in office and can fundamentally alter the landscape of American politics. As a Black person from Texas, these lasting impacts actively threaten my safety and livelihood. To demonstrate how Donald Trump’s presidency actively marginalizes Texans, I will emphasize policies Texas has implemented after only one Trump term. 

Trump’s conservative Supreme Court enabled Texas to almost entirely ban abortion, with penalties for those seeking abortions outside the state. Puberty blockers are restricted for transgender youth, who are also restricted from joining sports teams. Texas students can no longer accept race-based scholarships. These policies push the agenda of an increasingly right-wing government, which has become more brazen due to Trump’s presidency. 

The way the article talks about abstaining from the vote makes the election appear trivial, and it only considers the dislike of the candidate instead of analysis of their lasting impact. I agree with some of Sarafidis’ critiques of Harris, but I find her focus on harm done abroad nearsighted. I agree with standing against genocide and I wish Harris’ policies did more for Palestine, but Trump’s presidency will indubitably do more domestic and international harm. Trump is friendly with Netanyahu; Harris is not — Trump will do more harm to Palestine than Harris. He will target U.S. citizens with his backing of Project 2025. 

The decision not to vote is inherently privileged, as one can willfully ignore the populations who will be most severely impacted by the actions of the president knowing they will be safe no matter what. I understand that Trump’s impact will last far beyond his four-year term. With talks of older justices retiring, Trump may have opportunities to appoint younger conservatives to the Supreme Court, cementing a conservative majority outlasting him. These justices have the potential to overturn even more people’s rights. 

I do not have the privilege to abstain from voting with the expectation that my rights will stay secure. Of the two major party candidates, I understood that one would be openly hostile toward my life and livelihood. I understood that not voting would allow room for Trump and his Republican policies to rule my life. I think the article fails to consider that, for many, voting is less an endorsement of morality and more of a survival tactic. While Sarafidis has little to lose, I fear for the rights that I, and countless others, will lose as a result of four more years under Trump.