The ‘particularity problem’ is one of the most important objections to the putative duty to vote. The problem holds that the reasons usually given on behalf of a duty to vote fail to show there is a duty specifically to vote, but only at best show that voting is one of the many eligible ways to discharge some underlying duty, such as to exercise civic virtue, to contribute to others’ welfare, to avoid free-riding, or to avoid complicity with injustice. For instance, instead of voting for the purpose of avoiding complicity with injustice, one might engage in activism. Julia Maskivker’s recent work represents the most important and significant attempt to overcome this objection since it appeared. She argues, in effect, ‘Why not both?’ She claims that common sense considerations of Good Samaritanism show that most citizens should both vote and perform these other activities. However, in this article, we show that she fails to overcome the particularity problem.

“特殊性问题”是对推定投票义务的最重要反对之一。问题在于，通常代表表决权给出的理由未能表明存在专门表决的义务，但充其量只是表明，表决是履行某些基本职责的许多合格方法之一，例如行使公民美德，有助于他人的福祉，避免搭便车，或避免与不公正共谋。例如，人们可能出于激进主义的目的，而不是为了避免同谋不公正而进行投票。朱莉娅·马斯克夫克（Julia Maskivker）最近的工作代表了克服这一反对意见以来最重要，最重要的尝试。她实际上争辩说，“为什么不是两者都呢？” 她声称善意撒玛利亚主义的常识性考虑表明大多数公民都应该投票并执行其他活动。但是，在本文中，我们表明她无法克服特殊性问题。