Experts argue non-voters effectively cast ballots for the winner

The 2026 election cycle approaches with debates over voter participation intensifying. Robert M. DiVincenzo, a Yonkers-based commentator, argues that the belief that a single vote does not matter is a myth that suppresses turnout. He contends that abstaining from voting is mathematically equivalent to voting for the candidate who ultimately wins.

DiVincenzo states that many voters stay home because they believe their individual choice will not change the outcome. He describes this mindset as a disempowering belief that spreads like a virus. According to him, this logic leads to passive behavior where citizens complain about the results rather than taking responsibility for the process. He asserts that no one knows how an individual voted unless that person voluntarily discloses the information.

The core of DiVincenzo’s argument rests on a specific mathematical interpretation of non-voting. He explains that if two candidates run for office and a person does not vote, that person’s vote is effectively transferred to the winner. If the non-voter prefers the losing candidate, their inaction contributed to the victory of the candidate they did not want. He labels this concept voting by forfeit, noting that the non-voter allowed another citizen’s vote to count twice in the final tally.

To illustrate the point, DiVincenzo uses a football analogy. He compares not voting to a player who carries the ball to the five-yard line, stops, and hands the ball to the opposing team. The opponent then scores and wins the game. He asks readers how long that player would remain on the roster, implying that inaction is an active decision that benefits the opposition.

DiVincenzo also addresses the role of polling in shaping voter behavior. He suggests that polls are designed to influence how people think and act, often serving as a form of propaganda if they are not balanced and fact-based. He warns that weak polls can fuel preconceived ideas, leading people to stay home under the mistaken belief that they are not participating in the election.

The columnist emphasizes the need for constant vigilance in a constitutional republic. He quotes Thomas Jefferson, stating that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. He urges voters to select candidates who preserve constitutional rights and to hold those officials accountable if they falter. He concludes that there is no such thing as staying home, only using or losing one’s say in the matter.