After causing a lot of trouble for the person asking the question, such as saying I cannot rate the importance of policy A compared to policy B (“totally opposed to both” doesn’t exist as an alternative), she asked the question: “If the general elections were held today, who would you vote for?” I don’t know why they keep calling me, since they always find my answers disturbing.

So what do I reply to that question? I simply tell the truth, that’s the best thing to do. So I told her “I don’t vote.” That always makes them a little bit confused, and they ask again: “but if you were to vote, who would you vote for?” So I reply again, “I don’t vote, and that’s a matter of principle.”

Since this is the most important question to them, they need an answer. But they also need an answer that fits in their (very limited) poll documentation software. So they try again, and I tell them one more time that I do not vote because I am convinced voting is evil and that I could never ever act to support politicians who only want to rule my life and steal my property.

They usually answer: “Oh…”

I don’t think they have a clue what I’m talking about, but some of these callers are pretty good at pretending. But it all comes crashing down with their next question, and they always ask it: “So I’ll just check the box for ‘don’t know’ then…?” That really clarifies that they have no clue, doesn’t it?

My response is always: “No, you can’t do that – I do know, and I have chosen not to vote.” This means trouble, their software will only accepts one of the parties, “don’t know” and sometimes “blank votes.” But it doesn’t matter how many alternatives they have to choose from, I still don’t fit. And since they have already asked me if they can check the “don’t know” box, and I said no, they have no idea what to do.

This is when I try a joke, but they are under too much strain to find it funny. “Don’t you have a check box for people who don’t vote because they consider it an act of evil?” They usually don’t respond, but stay quite for a while longer. Eventually they will have to do something, they can’t just stay quite or hang up. Some of them simply decide to skip this question and go on with the rest of the questions. Others make a note that this strange person didn’t fit their template, so perhaps he shouldn’t be called (or options for strange people be added to the software).

The problem here is not that I don’t follow standards. That kind of information is what they are trying to figure out – that’s the reason for calling. All responses are good responses when what you’re doing is to survey what people think. You cannot avoid some people because they don’t fit your system – doing so would totally undermine the purpose of doing these surveys.

The problem is the person deciding what alternatives there ought to be. He has a very limited view of the world and cannot understand why anyone would consciously abstain from voting. That is a problem, especially when considering what democracy (to most people) is all about: making choices. Making a choice not to vote is as “democratic” as voting for the biggest party. But they cannot see this, it seems they don’t understand their own system.

Democracy is not merely a political system; it is more of a religion nowadays. And what do we do with heretics? We ignore them. Or put them in jail. Or burn them.