Vote!

[GePap]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Is Switzerland (with similar voter turnout lvls to the US) considered to be a dangerous politicaly unstable country within Europe as you, Arrian, and GePap seem to be suggesting it is?

Switzerland has a far less centralized regime than the US or other large European states. The government doesn't have that much legitimacy to begin with, in the sense that limited things are expected of it. There is no real central executive, the legislature meets for 12 weeks in the year for example.

I don't find the situation comparable.

[bipolarbear]

Originally posted by Brachy-Pride
when I dont like any candidate I put a picture of jesus

That's when I vote Green.

[Arrian]

A quibble:

While I think voting is a good thing, and people should be encouraged to do it, I do not think that our relatively low voter turnout means that we're "politically unstable."

-Arrian

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe


Finally a cogent answer.

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

Funny, I made the same argument a page back and was told I was avoiding the question.

-Arrian

[Donegeal]

Originally posted by Dis
I hear in Arizona they will randomly give 1 million dollars to a voter. I'm not sure I agree with that. As it will just encourage more stupid voters.

It was proposed but got shot down.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Arrian
While I think voting is a good thing, and people should be encouraged to do it, I do not think that our relatively low voter turnout means that we're "politically unstable."

I was basing the statement on the two reason you claim a high voter turnout is indicative of the health of a democracy.

Funny, I made the same argument a page back and was told I was avoiding the question.

You were. No one has made an arguement why voting for the sake of voting rather than because you have at least some idea of what the issues are and where the candidates stand isn't a cheapening of the right you claim to treasure.

[Arrian]

Which brings me back to this:

Sure, just because you vote doesn't mean you're politically aware, but I think there is a correlation. So more voters = more citizens taking an interest in what their government is doing.

People who decide to vote will be more likely to also educate themselves about the candidates/issues.

I grant you that's not the strongest argument in the world. It requires some optimism.

-Arrian

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by GePap


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.

Because there are plenty of nonlegit governments that exist in the world that are never in fear of political crisis or overthrow.

Matters of legitamcy are not enough. Spiff took it to te next level as only a French revolutionary would.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Is Switzerland (with similar voter turnout lvls to the US) considered to be a dangerous politicaly unstable country within Europe as you, Arrian, and GePap seem to be suggesting it is?

I expected the bit about Switzerland. Actually, the asterisk in the post you quote referred to a pre-emptive paragraph about Switzerland (I removed the paragraph, but forgot to remove the astarisk).

Basically, what GePap said. The Swiss legislature is much less important than the US one, and there are plenty of ways to take part in the Swiss power, that don't exist in the US. The main example is the systematic use of referenda, both canton-wide and federation-wide. Whenever the Swiss Parliament takes a decision, it can be brought to referendum if 50k people sign an adequate form. That's an immense difference with the US system, where the system can take controversial decisions "behind our backs".

Now, you'll tell me that most such Swiss referenda have a low turnout, about 50%. True. But this turnout mostly means that people don't feel competent on the specific issue they have to vote about, not necessarily that they feel incompetent or useless about politics in general. Those who voted on GM food and gay marriage may not be the same people as those who voted about the perequation between federal and canton money.

Finally, federation-wide referenda generally need a simple majority to pass (constitutional amendments require a majority of cantons as well). In most cases, the Swiss system means one person one vote, and you can't waste your vote for constituency reasons. Obviously, you can't ponder disempowerment in Switzerland the same way you can do it in the US (or in any bipartisan system where constituency is of utmost importance).

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Matters of legitamcy are not enough. Spiff took it to te next level as only a French revolutionary would.

Well, this comes directly from an American poli-sci professor called David Easton, who wrote in the 1960's. His main concern was the regime's stability

[Dis]

I think most people don't vote not because they feel their vote is worthless or nothing will change, but because they know they are ignorant deep down inside, and don't know **** about the candidates and their issues. They are doing us a favour by not voting. They know to leave voting in the hands of people that care about the goverment.

Although it is true, nothing ever changes. Republican, democrat. It's all the same. Corruption everywhere. They need to end all campaign contributions at the very least.

[SlowwHand]

So those born rich are surely the only ones able to run?
You don't think that's already a problem?
Personally I'd rather see a cap.

[Dis]

You can make it so no one can use their own personal money to run, it's all done with taxpayer money.

Easterbrook had a decent point in his tuesday morning qb column, that if we eliminated all the pork barrel projects these special interest groups (who finance campaigns) put forth, we'd save billions. These billions can either be used to raise senator salaries, or in my recommendation, finance campaigns.

Is it wrong to ask politicians to represent the people and not just the people who financed their campaign?