Why should you vote?

Undesired Walrus said:
With the election in the UK coming up, I come across more and more people who state that they are not going to vote, that there isn't much point, that 'nothing will change'. I find this deeply depressing, and more than a little annoying. However, I can't really give back a good response. I find the classic: 'people died for the right to vote' not all that compelling when you consider that people die for many things we take for granted.
Click to expand...

Understandable, however in my case (as I've mentioned a few times before) My grandfathers fought in WWII despite being turned away from the polls many times so my parents and aunts and uncles would have a better chance to vote.
My grandmother was very active in the civil rights movement and she walked with a limp til the day she died due to fire hoses and billy clubs so my cousins and I could vote without having to worry about that.

If you don't want to fine but I, at least, owe them.


If I choose not to eat for a few days, you are unlikely to tell me 'people die for food' all around the world. So please give me- oh jref brains- a good argument as to why joe bloggs from the street should vote.
Click to expand...

Heh. Grandma used to say "Boy people all around the world starvin to death and you can't eat your green beans!?!?"
 
"If you don't vote, you won't have the right to complain about the sitting politicians on the Internet."
 
Undesired Walrus said:
With the election in the UK coming up, I come across more and more people who state that they are not going to vote, that there isn't much point, that 'nothing will change'. I find this deeply depressing, and more than a little annoying. However, I can't really give back a good response. I find the classic: 'people died for the right to vote' not all that compelling when you consider that people die for many things we take for granted. If I choose not to eat for a few days, you are unlikely to tell me 'people die for food' all around the world. So please give me- oh jref brains- a good argument as to why joe bloggs from the street should vote.
Click to expand...

I'm with Jeff Greenfield. Stay home. Don't muck up the vote with a choice you don't really care about. Let those who care decide.
 
The impact of a single vote is so small it is perfectly rational not to vote.

http://timharford.com/2007/11/your-vote-doesn’t-count/

...

I am not making an argument about the miracle of the market, but about the limits of politics. Democracy has many virtues, but giving influence to the individual voter is not one of them. Notoriously, an individual’s vote makes no difference to anything. According to the British election watcher David Boothroyd, in 24 general elections since 1918, each spanning hundreds of parliamentary constituencies (most recently, 646), there has only ever been one valid election where your vote could have made a difference: A.J. Flint was elected as Labour MP for Ilkeston in 1931 by just two votes. (The other two-vote victory, in 1997, was declared void.) Even in 1931, the Ilkeston swing voter would not have influenced government policy: the Tories won about three times as many seats as all the other parties put together.

In the US, there is a similar story: the closest presidential race in history, Bush-Gore in 2000, still had a margin of more than 500 votes in Florida.

...
Click to expand...

On the other hand, what would send a louder message to our politicians than no one voting for any of them?

:)
 
Does any place in Britain have the single-transferable vote, also known as instant runoff?

STV/IRV is one way to address the spoiler problem. That might encourage more people who support minor parties to vote, and some of these people would leave a second choice and sway the outcome in a direction somewhat more to their liking.

This could really make a difference in a district as evenly-balanced as Francesca's, and it might even change the dynamics where Darat lives.
 
Ivor the Engineer said:
The impact of a single vote is so small it is perfectly rational not to vote.
Click to expand...

Elaborate. If that quote is your reason, it is silly. The power of one's vote isn't measured by whether you break a tie or not, that would be ridiculously narrow definition that serves no purpose but to rationalize a reason for one to not vote.

On the other hand, what would send a louder message to our politicians than no one voting for any of them?

:)
Click to expand...

That's not a message, it is in fact the opposite of a message. The politicians will be busy spending their political capital to fulfil their mandates, not mind-reading why X% of people didn't vote.
 
GreyArea said:
Does any place in Britain have the single-transferable vote, also known as instant runoff?

STV/IRV is one way to address the spoiler problem. That might encourage more people who support minor parties to vote, and some of these people would leave a second choice and sway the outcome in a direction somewhat more to their liking.

This could really make a difference in a district as evenly-balanced as Francesca's, and it might even change the dynamics where Darat lives.
Click to expand...

I am pretty sure the Scots use an Additional Member System for their parliament, and STV locally, but I know Westminster doesn't. The Electoral Reform Society has been around since 1888 and John Cleese made a video video and there is still no proportional representation. Though depending on the House of Lords, there could be an referendum on AV in about one year.
 
Tsukasa Buddha said:
Elaborate. If that quote is your reason, it is silly. The power of one's vote isn't measured by whether you break a tie or not, that would be ridiculously narrow definition that serves no purpose but to rationalize a reason for one to not vote.
Click to expand...

The power of a person's vote is measured by how likely their vote swings the outcome of the election in the direction the voter wants. As the vast majority of elections are won with a majority of far more than a 2 votes, the chances of any one vote altering the outcome are vanishingly small.

Here's a more detailed article on the subject:

http://www.slate.com/id/2107240/

That's not a message, it is in fact the opposite of a message. The politicians will be busy spending their political capital to fulfil their mandates, not mind-reading why X% of people didn't vote.
Click to expand...

I disagree. I think it would send shock waves around the world that a population was so disaffected with the view of the future its politicians were offering that no one bothered to vote for any of them.
 
Tsukasa Buddha said:
I am pretty sure the Scots use an Additional Member System for their parliament, and STV locally, but I know Westminster doesn't. The Electoral Reform Society has been around since 1888 and John Cleese made a video video and there is still no proportional representation. Though depending on the House of Lords, there could be an referendum on AV in about one year.
Click to expand...

We have first past the post area MSPs and also party list MP's based on how many votes the party gets in certain regions. Mixed member proportional representation system. It has led to coalition govts.

The Liberal Dems had 11 constituency MSP whereas the Conservatives only had 4. But then the totals for each are 17 for Cons and 16 for Libs due to the extra list MSPs.

I am sure Gordon Brown was looking to bring some type of reform in down South.
 
Ivor the Engineer said:
The power of a person's vote is measured by how likely their vote swings the outcome of the election in the direction the voter wants. As the vast majority of elections are won with a majority of far more than a 2 votes, the chances of any one vote altering the outcome are vanishingly small.

Here's a more detailed article on the subject:

http://www.slate.com/id/2107240/



I disagree. I think it would send shock waves around the world that a population was so disaffected with the view of the future its politicians were offering that no one bothered to vote for any of them.
Click to expand...

April Fool yeh?
 
Ivor the Engineer said:
The power of a person's vote is measured by how likely their vote swings the outcome of the election in the direction the voter wants. As the vast majority of elections are won with a majority of far more than a 2 votes, the chances of any one vote altering the outcome are vanishingly small.

Here's a more detailed article on the subject:

http://www.slate.com/id/2107240/



I disagree. I think it would send shock waves around the world that a population was so disaffected with the view of the future its politicians were offering that no one bothered to vote for any of them.
Click to expand...

So your nonvote only has power when a large enough group of people choose similarly... Hmmm.... sounds so familiar :p .
 
funk de fino said:
April Fool yeh?
Click to expand...

Sadly no.

The elephant in the room that no politician or political party of significance wants to seriously address is how to stop the rich and wealthy accelerating away from the poor and middle income members of society. Any ideas why that is?

I suggest the maximum donation from any one individual or organisation to a political party is capped at £100.
 
Ivor--the logical flaw in your argument, is that, extended Kant-style, it makes the case that nobody should vote. Kind of undermines itself, doesn't it? Seems like the equivalent of "Nobody ever goes there because it's too crowded."

As someone else pointed out, a chorus doesn't change on one voice, but it needs each voice in order to exist at all.
 
Last edited:
I know somebody who persuaded his six housemates to vote in Winchester in the 1997 general election

They all voted lib-dem, and the initial election result was a win by 2-votes (the election was later declared void)
 
gnome said:
the logical flaw in your argument, is that, extended Kant-style, it makes the case that nobody should vote. Kind of undermines itself, doesn't it?
Click to expand...
No, it is self-limiting (and thus not "Kant style"). At some critical level of low turnout, the influence of one person increases enough to make it rational for them to vote. I don't know where the threshold is, but it's going to be before turnout shrinks to 1.

Seems like the equivalent of "Nobody ever goes there because it's too crowded."
Click to expand...
Your extended version is the equivalent of that. But reality isn't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom