"Bad politicians are sent to Washington by good people who don't vote"

A healthy democracy relies on the active participation of its citizens. When individuals disengage from the electoral process, whether from apathy, cynicism, or a sense of powerlessness, they inadvertently shape the outcome just as much as those who do vote. William E. Simon’s words point to a crucial dynamic: the most detrimental political figures are often empowered not by the will of a malevolent majority, but by the inaction of those with good intentions who remain silent at the ballot box.

Nonvoters may rationalize their abstention with the belief that their single vote does not matter or that all candidates are equally flawed. Yet, every voter who withdraws from the process leaves a void, a space that can be filled by individuals or interests who may not represent the broader good or public will. The aggregation of many such decisions can tip the scales in favor of candidates who are less qualified, less ethical, or more self-serving, leading to governance that fails to reflect the needs and values of the larger population.

Voter disengagement erodes the representative nature of democracy. It enables special interests or extreme factions to exert disproportionate influence, as their supporters are often more motivated and organized. Passivity among the wider populace, often comprised of ‘good people,’ cedes the ground to those with narrower or more self-serving agendas.

Ultimately, the act of voting is not just a right, but a civic duty. It is a means for ordinary people to check power, hold leaders accountable, and uphold the health of public institutions. When good people abstain from voting, they relinquish their power and voice, inviting undesirable consequences. Thus, the health of a democracy depends not only on the nature of those seeking office, but even more on the willingness of capable, conscientious citizens to participate and shape their collective destiny.