4

Thursday, May 12, 2016
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
OPINION

LARA MOEHLMAN

EDITOR IN CHIEF

JEREMY KAPLAN

EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR

BRADLEY WHIPPLE

MANAGING EDITOR

420 Maynard St. 

Ann Arbor, MI 48109

 tothedaily@michigandaily.com

Edited and managed by students at 

the University of Michigan since 1890.

Don’t waste your vote

Bring back the written word
A 

little while back, I was 
texting a friend from home. 
We were catching up and 

I told her that 
my grandfather 
had just passed 
away, so I’d gone 
to Florida for the 
funeral. Almost 
immediately, she texted me back a 
red heart emoji. When I saw it, I was 
touched. But at the same time, I was a 
little taken aback, maybe even a little 
frustrated that she hadn’t written 
something like “I’m so sorry for your 
loss” or “Let me know if you want to 
talk.” 

Nonetheless, there could have 

been a variety of reasons why she 
didn’t say any of these things. As 
students, we are incredibly busy, so 
we may not have time to respond 
to every e-mail or every text with 
incredible detail. In fact, we shouldn’t 
expect these types of responses all 
the time, and I do not fault her for not 
responding with more than an emoji. 
They are, after all, there for us to use. 
So why wouldn’t we? But this moment 
got me thinking. As technology use 
is rapidly increasing and expanding, 
Facebook stickers, emoticons, emojis 
and GIFs have changed the way we 
communicate, but not necessarily for 
the better.

Ever since the advent of Facebook, 

its users have been clamoring for 
a “dislike” button to pair with the 
“like” button. And though there is no 
indication that feature will be an option 
any time soon, at the end of February 
2016 Facebook gave its users the ability 
to respond to a post on their newsfeed 
by clicking on one of five emoticons. 
The choices? “Love,” “haha,” “sad,” 
“angry” and “wow.” Now, people aren’t 
forced to default to “liking” a post.

According to Facebook CEO Mark 

Zuckerberg, Facebook added the 
emoticons because they want users to 
be able to “express empathy and make 
it comfortable to share a wider range of 
emotions.” Facebook Product Manager 
Sammi Krug said this gives users 
the ability to “authentically react” to 
Facebook posts, adding that this new 
feature is an “easy” thing to do that 
“opens a lot of doors.”

Zuckerberg and Krugs’ statements 

indicate that they see the solution to 
a lack of emotion over Facebook to be 
animated happy and sad faces. Now, 
not only can you “like” something, but 
you can also “love” something. But to 
me, these statements are problematic. 
Don’t get me wrong. I think emoticons 
and emojis have a place in our 
communication. In fact, it would be 
cool if someone were to “love” a picture 
and comment.

I believe an emoticon could be a 

nice supplement to a comment, but it 
shouldn’t replace one — especially if 
the subject is very important or serious. 
We need to think more about how we 
use these emoticons and emojis, as we 
often, too willingly, replace a written 
sentiment with a little animated face 
or GIF.

By adding these emoticons, some 

can express anger about a New York 
Times article regarding the shootings 
in Brussels, for example, by simply 
clicking on the “angry” face emoticon. 
And by making “reacting” this easy, 
I believe we lose truly authentic and 
thought-out written comments.

In this way, we are essentially 

telling people that clicking the “love” 
emoticon is the same thing as typing 
out “I love you” or “This is a great 
article.” Similarly, these emoticons 
also emphasize a one — size — fits — 
all mentality. Take, for example, the 
“wow” emoticon. By clicking that, you 
could be saying, “Wow, that is really 
terrible” or “Wow, this is amazing,” 
which can be problematic given that 
an emoticon can’t easily distinguish 
between the two, unless someone takes 
the time to clarify what it means.

Words allow us to convey different 

levels of emotion that an emoticon 
cannot. If a post pops up on your 
newsfeed about the passing of one of 
your friends’ loved-ones, I am sure it 
could make you sad and you may feel 
inclined to click the “sad” emoticon. 
But then, right after, if a news story 
about the closing of your favorite store 
pops up, that may also make you feel 
sad, but it’s likely a different level of 
sad. What are you going to do then? 
Click the “sad” emoticon?

To me, these events are different 

and elicit two different levels of 
sadness. I would feel odd using the 
“sad” emoticon for both and just 
leaving it at that. It is my belief that 
these emoticons don’t encompass 
all emotions, nor do they always do 
a good job of conveying what we 
actually mean to say without some 
explanation. That is where words 
can and must come in.

Although many see Facebook’s 

newest feature as a blessing, finally a 
way to more accurately express how 
you feel about something, I am wary 
to accept it without reservation. I 
would like to see the written word 
make a comeback. And the best 
way to do that is to give us fewer 
ways to hide behind GIFs, emojis 
and emoticons. Or if you are going 
use emoticon, maybe write a little 
something to go along with it. 

—Anna Polumbo-Levy can be 

reached at annapl@umich.edu.

ANNA 
POLUMBO-
LEVY

FROM THE DAILY

Roland Davidson, Caitlin Heenan, Jeremy Kaplan, 

Madeline Nowicki, Anna Polumbo-Levy, 

Kevin Sweitzer, Brooke White.

EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS

Many voters who have rallied 

behind these two hashtags feel as 
though the candidate affiliated with 
their identified majority party is 
totally unsuitable to be president. 
To this end, these citizens have 
proposed either voting for a third-
party candidate as a protest vote, 
writing in the name of a candidate 
they would have rather endorsed 
or simply staying home on Election 
Day. This impulse is understandable 
given 
how 
unpalatable 
the 

presumptive nominees are to some 
voters. All of these decisions, made in 
protest, if done without considering 
the consequences, all accomplish 
the same thing for our American 
political system: nothing.

A protest vote can serve an 

important 
function 
in 
many 

democracies throughout the world. 
In 
multi-party 
parliamentary 

systems, a protest vote can help close 
the gap between parties and prevent 
a single one from establishing a 

ruling majority. However, because 
the U.S. presidential election only 
has two major primary candidates, 
a protest vote cannot institutionally 
accomplish this goal.

People 
who 
band 
together 

around 
#BernieorBust 
are 
by 

definition averse to compromise. 
This purity can be commendable, 
but compromise is essential to our 
political system. Many people accept 
the importance of bargaining in the 
abstract, but when it comes time 
to actually do so, they fall short. By 
adhering to an unyielding ideaolgy, 
voters spoil elections for themselves. 
One only has to look back to 2000 
to see how a mere 2.7 percent of the 
vote going to Ralph Nader swung the 
results to Bush, who very few Nader 
supporters considered a second 
choice. Thus, it’s important for 
people who have so much trepidation 
about a Clinton or Trump presidency 
to seriously consider what they want 
the country to look like in four years.

There are, however, valid reasons 

to vote for a third party. When a 
third party reaches five percent of 
the popular vote, it receives federal 
funding for the next election cycle. 
Therefore, if you believe that our 
nation can break out of a two — party 
system (despite the sizable obstacle 
presented by our single-member, 
plurality-rule 
election 
system), 

then voting for a third party is a 
worthwhile decision.

Regardless of the way in which 

one ultimately votes, it is important 
to do so while giving serious thought 
to the issues our nation faces. Simply 
writing in a bygone candidate’s name 
is just as bad as sitting home and not 
voting. As you start to consider the 
candidates as the choices become 
clear, consider what your individual 
vote will do. Even when there may 
not seem to be a clear-cut candidate 
for a given party to support, every 
vote counts. Make sure to use yours 
wisely.

Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have the highest unfavorability ratings of 

any Democrat or Republican nominee ever running for the presidency. This 

phenomenon has a plethora of implications for our democracy, but one of the 

most problematic is the creation of the #NeverTrump campaign and its cousin 

#BernieorBust. #NeverTrump is a rallying call from Republicans, such as Paul 

Ryan, who categorically refuse to support their party’s presumptive nominee 

for any number of reasons: questionable behavior on the campaign trail, general 

bigotry, total lack of a coherent policy platform and serial lying. On the other side, 

there are lingering questions regarding Clinton’s use of a private e-mail server, 

passage of the 1994 crime bill, receiving six-digit payments for speeches before 

Goldman Sachs executives and perceived lack of authenticity. All of this stands in 

stark contrast to the ideological purity of her competitor, Bernie Sanders.

