Op-Ed: Not Voting Equals Voting for the Winner

Robert M. DiVincenzo, a resident of Yonkers, argues that the belief that abstaining from an election has no effect is a persistent myth. Writing in an opinion piece for the Yonkers Times on October 27, 2026, DiVincenzo contends that not voting is not a neutral act. Instead, he describes it as a form of passive voting that inadvertently supports the candidate who ultimately wins.

DiVincenzo challenges the common sentiment that individual votes do not count. He cites a recent comment from a prominent conservative talk show host who questioned what would happen if people stopped coming out to vote. The columnist identifies this hesitation as a "mind virus" spread by those who prefer low voter turnout. He asserts that nothing stays the same in an election cycle, comparing political stability to a baby picture that changes over time.

The central argument relies on a mathematical premise. DiVincenzo explains that if two candidates run and a voter stays home, that voter has effectively forfeited their ballot. If the voter dislikes the person who wins, DiVincenzo argues they have voted for that person by default. He states that the non-voter gave their vote to another citizen who cast a ballot for the winner. This, he says, means the non-voter allowed another citizen's vote to count twice.

To illustrate the impact of inaction, DiVincenzo uses a sports analogy. He compares a non-voter to a football player who runs the ball to the five-yard line, stops, and hands the ball to the opposing team. The opposing team then scores and wins the game. The columnist asks how long such a player would remain on the team, suggesting the answer is obvious.

DiVincenzo links voter participation to the concept of vigilance. He quotes Thomas Jefferson, who said, "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance." The columnist argues that this vigilance must be constant, not occasional. He warns against a "false sense of trust" that leads the electorate to go to sleep after electing officials. He urges readers to call out representatives when they act contrary to their campaigns.

The piece concludes with a direct instruction to the reader. DiVincenzo tells readers to use their constitutional right or lose it. He emphasizes that there is no such thing as staying home. The final directive is to vote wisely for a candidate who will preserve the Constitution and constitutional rights.