The people who consciously decide not to vote in the coming election have as much responsibility to carry as those who will cast their preferences.

In Malta, voter turn-out in general elections is always close to the maximum. And many of the people who do not vote do not turn up either because they would have died in between the time when the last electoral register is published and the election, or are too sick or abroad on the day of the election.

But then there are a number of people who decide not to vote, for a wide variety of reasons. Some are simply apolitical and do not give two hoots as to which party is elected to government. Some others want to punish their own party, especially that in government, for not getting what they thought was theirs by right. These people, rather than vote for a smaller party, choose not to vote at all. They will never vote for the opposing major party, but will protest against the party they have always voted for by not voting.

It is often said that every vote counts, and this is true. But every vote that is not cast (or is given to a smaller party) counts too, because if there were enough of them it could lead to a party winning over another by default.

The people who voluntarily choose not to vote for whatever reason are playing their part in the overall outcome of the election. And they should think it over twice before choosing not to exercise their right to vote.

Imagine, for argument’s sake, that 5,000 Labourites do not vote and the Nationalists win by 3,000 votes. Imagine if, under the Nationalists, the cost of living goes sky-high, taxation is increased and not decreased as is being promised and foreign investment does not come in the amounts being mentioned. Imagine they would have to take second or third jobs to make ends meet. How would those 5,000 Labourites feel if this had to happen? It would be their fault.

Now imagine that 5,000 Nationalists do not vote and Labour wins by 3,000 votes. Imagine if, under Labour, the country passes through economic and political strife, jobs are lost and people’s spending powers are considerably curbed. Imagine they are among those who lose their job. How would those 5,000 Nationalists feel for taking the country to that disastrous state? It would be their fault as well.

In both imaginary circumstances, the non-voters would have contributed to the country’s difficulty – and their own – by not casting their vote. And they would be the ones to be blamed for it all. They would perhaps be more responsible for the country’s downfall than those who actually voted for the party that wins the election. For the latter, voting for that particular party is what they believe in; for the non-voters, not voting out of spite would end up leading to hardships not only for themselves, but for the country in general.

People tend to think that the vote they cast gives them the right to obtain something if their party wins. They tend to look at their own personal gain, rather than the overall good of the country. And when they are disappointed because this personal gain does not arrive, some opt not to vote the next time round.

People should not be so short-sighted. People should consider the whole picture, not their own personal wishes. Deciding not to vote is everyone’s right, but people who are considering the option should think of the consequences of their action before making up their mind.

They could regret it later.