A

nyone familiar with US politics surely knows what happened in Florida in 2000. There was a dispute between Republican candidate George W Bush and his Democratic contender Al Gore concerning vote-counting. Some of the ballots could not be counted by machines, which led to the question of how many votes each candidate actually won.

The dispute was significant as nationally it was then a tie between Bush and Gore. None of them had secured a majority in the electoral college, therefore whoever won Florida won the election.

In response to the controversy, the Florida Supreme Court ordered a recount, but the US Supreme Court overruled the verdict. The Supreme Court insisted that the result should be based only on already-counted votes.

The ruling handed Bush the victory in Florida and the presidency. The margin of the votes? Only 537.

 What would have happened if Gore had won the 2000 election? We can reasonably argue that the world would have been different in at least two issues. The first is the Iraq war, which Al Gore opposed. For example, in a 2002 speech in San Francisco he blasted Bush, saying an Iraq war would distract from America’s fight against terrorism.

Second, the economy. Being a Democrat, Gore would have taken a different path from Bush in terms of tax cuts for the rich. He would also have been less likely to deregulate the market or wage costly wars that depleted the surplus president Clinton had built up. Though debatable, the 2008 financial crisis might have not been as bad as it really was.

Florida’s 537 votes negate the opinion of many who say their votes do not matter. A 2011 study by the Indonesian Survey Institute showed that voter turnout in national elections dropped from 93 percent in 1999 to 71 percent in 2009.

In Jakarta’s first round gubernatorial election in July, abstentions, known by the Indonesian term golput, amounted to 35 percent of the electorate.

Is poll boycotting wrong? It is neither wrong nor a crime, it is just pointless. In one respect, golput can mean a total disregard for politics. Perhaps this stand originates from the belief that politics is dirty and hence best avoided.

Certainly political apathy is a choice and no one can force others to care or not to care about politics. But, what is sad about politically apathetic people is that they do not realize that in reality no one escapes politics. From our birth to death, politics affects us. Our birth certificates, our education, our identity cards are all affected by politics.

As the influence of politics is ineluctable, consequently we have only two choices: pay politics a little attention or simply fall “victim” to it.

Sadly, through their ignorance the golput faction seems to choose the latter.

Another portion of golput voters deliberately skips elections not because they do not care. On the contrary they care too much. They know that no candidate can bring about the desired changes.

This view is legitimate as most candidates are endorsed by political parties and the parties themselves are regarded as corrupt.

In the case of Jakarta’s election, there was a glimpse of hope for this group in the form of independent candidates. However, the indie candidates’ defeat at the hands of party nominees put this politically sophisticated golput group in the dilemma of whether to vote or not vote in the second round.

Considering the politically sophisticated golput, I assume they know democracy is not an overnight process. It is like pouring milk into a cup of coffee. At one point the coffee will be completely black; however, with persistence it will eventually reach the perfect combination.

The same applies to Indonesian politics. In Jakarta’s election, perhaps Foke-Nara and Jokowi-Ahok are not satisfying enough; but they are the only choices. No matter what we yell on the streets, it is either Foke or Jokowi that will make the call. Policies are made inside, not outside the system.

I recall someone rhetorically asking me a question regarding the Florida tale, “Could you imagine what would have happened if only 538 people had decided to leave their homes, went to the ballots and voted for Gore?” This is the same question we will also ask months after Jakarta’s election.

If Jokowi wins, those who want Foke to win may ask themselves, “What would have happened if only some people had gone to the ballots and voted for Foke?” And vice versa, if Foke wins and Jakarta just gets worse, those who are already disgruntled with him may wonder, “It’s just a couple of thousand out of millions eligible voters.

What would have happened if only those people had gone to the ballot and voted for Jokowi?”

The 537 votes in Florida determined who went to the White House and shaped the world we live in today. We do not know how many votes will shape Jakarta’s election. However, we do know that every vote counts.

Yes, apathy- and skepticism-based golput is fine, but, elections are for humans, not angels. The perfect candidate is next to impossible to find. Most of the time, politics happens in a way that means a less bad candidate being defeated by a bad candidate. The rule of every election is simple; President Barack Obama put it eloquently: “Don’t compare me to the Almighty, compare me to the alternative.”

The writer is a Fulbright student researching political psychology at Loyola University Chicago.