Vote!

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

It dos in the orignal context that I pointed out. Our representative democracy assumed that decisions were best laid at the feet of people most qualified to make decisions.


Why should we not aspire for a voting public most informed to make decisions on the representives so chosen?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
It dos in the orignal context that I pointed out. Our representative democracy assumed that decisions were best laid at the feet of people most qualified to make decisions.

How? Tom Delay was the best qualified individual from his district to make the decisions for them? We have a representative democracy for purposes of function. Making laws with 545 Legislators is easier than making laws with a 4 million, which was the pop. in 1789, or 300 million today. The only qualifications in the law for being a representative are being a citizen who resides in the area who can vote, not a felon, and who meets a basic age requirement. I fail to see how those requirements even make one individual who meets them more qualified than say someone who might not meet one of them, far less how that distinguishes between the qualifications of those elligable individuals who can run.

Why should we not aspire for a voting public most informed to make decisions on the representives so chosen?

Being motivated is not a measurement of being informed, for one. And having an informed public is a function of the education system and the electoral campaign system, not an issue of turnout.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Why are high voting rates considered good?

It shows that people feel their opinion matters. A sufficient turnout is an essential element to support the democratic regime.

Basically, a democratic regime where a majority of people never vote* has no legitimacy, and political crises are potentially much worse, or more violent.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Spiffor

It shows that people feel their opinion matters. A sufficient turnout is an essential element to support the democratic regime.

Basically, a democratic regime where a majority of people never vote* has no legitimacy, and political crises are potentially much worse, or more violent.

Finally a cogent answer.

Edit - Of course one could argue that an apathetic voter populace means the likelihood of la revelucion equally small.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Edit - Of course one could argue that an apathetic voter populace means the likelihood of la revelucion equally small.

Abstention from vote is not the same thing as political apathy. You can be apathetic and still vote. You can have strong opinions and abstain.

Over here, we have at least one example with Kidicious, who refuses to vote despite having strong political opinions.

The low US turnout is usually explained by the following:

- There are many elections (one every two years), and the public doesn't feel his vote is essential each time. It's not like there was an overwhelming stake every two years (this contrasts with countries where there's basically a "vote once and shut up for 5 years" system)

- Getting to the polls is uselessly complicated. You don't do it an a holiday. Voting booths aren't always at walking distance, far from it. Voting in the US is more of a hassle than in most developed countries.

- The voting system is made in such a way that only two parties have a realistic chance to win. As a result, these parties are "catch all". The various ideologies on the political spectrum have much less representation as a result. Those who yet vote for a third party waste their vote, in that they don't take part to the actual decision of who's going to lead. These third-party voters and third-party sympathizers (among them, some end up voting Rep or Dem, many don't vote at all) are disempowered.

- The voting system results in many constitutencies having safe seats. Those inhabitants who vote for the opposing party basically waste their vote. In the US, every election with a nationwide stake depends on how the constituency votes as a whole (exception is made for those few states who send a proportionality of voters to the electoral college). As a result, the opponents in a safe constituency are disempowered.


You end up with a system where many voters feel (and they're pretty right) that their vote would only be for show, but won't be any useful. And at the same time, it's not really easy to go vote. As a result, despite having their opinions, the uselessness and hassleness of their vote dissuade many people from expressing their opinion in the polls.

IMO, making election easier (by making them a holiday) would help significantly. However, for people to really get their asses off, you'd need a system where every vote matters despite going against the constituency. And you'd need a system where more than two parties can realistically compete.
In such a case, most politically motivated people would go to vote, and abstention would actually show who actually doesn't care, instead of also including those who feel disempowered.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe


Finally a cogent answer.

How is:

It shows that people feel their opinion matters. A sufficient turnout is an essential element to support the democratic regime.

Basically, a democratic regime where a majority of people never vote* has no legitimacy, and political crises are potentially much worse, or more violent.

different from

Because a democratic system is legitimate only if the public participates. If less than half the public consistently votes, then you don't really have a system in which the popular will rules and the legitimacy of the very system is questionable.

[SlowwHand]

People in countries all over the world would die for the opportunity to vote, and do die.
Here we have people who are begged to vote, asking why should they vote.

Pathetic.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Zkribbler: IMO, those who vote are likely going to be the ones who really care about what is going on in the first place. Thus, the push to boost student voting rates is useless and misdirected. The candidates should worry more about ensuring that their platforms are well advertised so that those who do care are able to make informed decisions at the poll rather than trying to drag people who don't care to the polling booth.

Of course I'd rather people cast informed votes. We all would.

But absent that, I want people to treasure their right to vote. I want them voting even if they have no clue what they're doing. That way, no one will ever dare to try and take the right to vote away.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
People in countries all over the world would die for the opportunity to vote, and do die.
Here we have people who are begged to vote, asking why should they vote.

Pathetic.

Voting for someone in whom you don't believe is worse than not voting and substantially no different than a vote cast in an Eastern Bloc election. I refuse to vote for someone just to say I voted. People who do that turn voting into a religious ritual. They're not fulfilling their "civic duty;" to the contrary, they're violating it. They're giving mandates to people who don't actually represent them.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
But absent that, I want people to treasure their right to vote. I want them voting even if they have no clue what they're doing.

If they truly treasured their right to vote, they'd refuse to cheapen it in the way you suggest.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Abstention from vote is not the same thing as political apathy. You can be apathetic and still vote. You can have strong opinions and abstain.

Over here, we have at least one example with Kidicious, who refuses to vote despite having strong political opinions.

The low US turnout is usually explained by the following:

- There are many elections (one every two years), and the public doesn't feel his vote is essential each time. It's not like there was an overwhelming stake every two years (this contrasts with countries where there's basically a "vote once and shut up for 5 years" system)

- Getting to the polls is uselessly complicated. You don't do it an a holiday. Voting booths aren't always at walking distance, far from it. Voting in the US is more of a hassle than in most developed countries.

- The voting system is made in such a way that only two parties have a realistic chance to win. As a result, these parties are "catch all". The various ideologies on the political spectrum have much less representation as a result. Those who yet vote for a third party waste their vote, in that they don't take part to the actual decision of who's going to lead. These third-party voters and third-party sympathizers (among them, some end up voting Rep or Dem, many don't vote at all) are disempowered.

- The voting system results in many constitutencies having safe seats. Those inhabitants who vote for the opposing party basically waste their vote. In the US, every election with a nationwide stake depends on how the constituency votes as a whole (exception is made for those few states who send a proportionality of voters to the electoral college). As a result, the opponents in a safe constituency are disempowered.


You end up with a system where many voters feel (and they're pretty right) that their vote would only be for show, but won't be any useful. And at the same time, it's not really easy to go vote. As a result, despite having their opinions, the uselessness and hassleness of their vote dissuade many people from expressing their opinion in the polls.

IMO, making election easier (by making them a holiday) would help significantly. However, for people to really get their asses off, you'd need a system where every vote matters despite going against the constituency. And you'd need a system where more than two parties can realistically compete.
In such a case, most politically motivated people would go to vote, and abstention would actually show who actually doesn't care, instead of also including those who feel disempowered.

Great post, Spiffor.

[SlowwHand]

Voting for the lesser of 2 evils is all you're going to get.
Shangri-la doesn't exist, no matter what stories you were told at bedtime.

[Darius871]

Wouldn't it at least be less far from Shangri-La to choose from the lesser of 8 evils?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Wycoff


Voting for someone in whom you don't believe is worse than not voting and substantially no different than a vote cast in an Eastern Bloc election. I refuse to vote for someone just to say I voted. People who do that turn voting into a religious ritual. They're not fulfilling their "civic duty;" to the contrary, they're violating it. They're giving mandates to people who don't actually represent them.

And yet by not voting for anyone, you perpetuate a system which creates those "non-choices."

Given that you don't want to vote for bad candidates, do you ever think of running yourself? Campaign for a candidate you find that you like, hoping they become the choice? IN short, do you do ANYTHING at all for the democratic process whatsoever?

[Grandpa Troll]

I say Vote early, Vote Often

A Vote for your favorite is a vote not cast for your foe!

Ask not what your country can do for you, but what YOU can do for your country




Remember dont be a stoopid poo-poo head, vote with your head above your shoulders