Should You Vote If You Can?

[Complexity]

Such a ballot would be informal in this country, and would be discarded without being counted.

I would act as I thought best. What the damned government does after that is its responsibility, not mine.

 

[Unabogie]

I find it odd that in a country where the Supreme Court is about to drastically change the nature of health care in this country, on way or another, and the supreme court is appointed by whoever is elected as President, that people still think that elections don't matter. That we're done with one war, and winding down another, that cost us trillions of dollars and thousands of lives, but elections don't matter. That abortion is being made de facto illegal in many states, but elections don't matter.

However you feel about these issues, who you put in charge of you matters.

I support third party voting, or write in voting, or protest voting. I just don't get apathy. It's a total abdication of your piece of the pie, small as it is.

 

[Complexity]

I support third party voting, or write in voting, or protest voting. I just don't get apathy. It's a total abdication of your piece of the pie, small as it is.

When you are surrounded by sheeple who, election after election, vote for one of the major groups of thugs over the other, I can easily understand how someone could decide that voting is not worth it, and could even be damaging by propping up the illusion that elections have meeting.

I am voting in this next election for my usual reasons - to vote against school referenda and to vote against Republican-sponsored changes in the Minnesota state constitution (i.e. requiring photo IDs to vote, banning gay marriage).

As to your assertion that not voting is a 'total abdication' of responsibility, the entire system is a travesty, the great majority of the population are idiots, and I'm not interested in uninformed views over what I or others should do.

 

[Unabogie]

When you are surrounded by sheeple who, election after election, vote for one of the major groups of thugs over the other, I can easily understand how someone could decide that voting is not worth it, and could even be damaging by propping up the illusion that elections have meeting.

I am voting in this next election for my usual reasons - to vote against school referenda and to vote against Republican-sponsored changes in the Minnesota state constitution (i.e. requiring photo IDs to vote, banning gay marriage).

As to your assertion that not voting is a 'total abdication' of responsibility, the entire system is a travesty, the great majority of the population are idiots, and I'm not interested in uninformed views over what I or others should do.

I didn't say it was your responsibility. I said it was an abdication of your role in choosing the people who will dictate a portion of your life. Apathy is stupid in light of the reality that the people who win elections control facets of your fate. You're not planning on choosing apathy, so this isn't directed at you.

 

[theprestige]

I find it odd that in a country where the Supreme Court is about to drastically change the nature of health care in this country

Actually, it's the ACA that makes the drastic change. The Supreme Court will be ruling on whether the change in question is permissible.

 

[Unabogie]

Actually, it's the ACA that makes the drastic change. The Supreme Court will be ruling on whether the change in question is permissible.

And the ACA (congress) and the court were put in place...how?

 

[SezMe]

... but there are enough sheep in my state that it will go to Obama by default unless something really major happens to close the gap.

When you are surrounded by sheeple who....

So people who consistently vote their own values are sheep, eh? Nice attitude.

 

[BravesFan]

I find it odd that in a country where the Supreme Court is about to drastically change the nature of health care in this country, on way or another, and the supreme court is appointed by whoever is elected as President, that people still think that elections don't matter. That we're done with one war, and winding down another, that cost us trillions of dollars and thousands of lives, but elections don't matter. That abortion is being made de facto illegal in many states, but elections don't matter.

However you feel about these issues, who you put in charge of you matters.

I support third party voting, or write in voting, or protest voting. I just don't get apathy. It's a total abdication of your piece of the pie, small as it is.

In reference to the bolded. They will all be shot down in the courts system eventually. This is how our system works.

 

[Unabogie]

In reference to the bolded. They will all be shot down in the courts system eventually. This is how our system works.

Maybe, but that' not a given since our courts are made up of appointed justices, place there by people who are...you guessed it...elected.

 

[theprestige]

I never said that you couldn't abstain. And I'm saying "I" because you're responding to me, not angrysoba.

Whoops! I guess I got my quote tags crossed. Sorry 'bout that.

And I'm sorry for any other confusion I may have caused. What I meant by "abstain" was, "decline to travel to a polling place and register a vote (null or otherwise)". Which, in Australia, is illegal.

So, returning to my original question to you (not angrysoba) -- What is undemocratic about deciding to stay home on election day?

But how do you know that? How do you know that say, 60% of that 80% decided not to vote because they believe that their vote won't achieve anything?

Why should I care what people believe or why the decide voting isn't worth their time and effort? What's important to me is that--whatever their reason--they have the freedom to decide for themselves what level of participation matters to them.

Besides, if 60% of people don't think their vote matters, the solution isn't to force them to go and vote anyway. And if they're right, then I'd say your democracy has far worse problems than requiring people who know better to waste their time participating in a pointless ritual.

And if 20% of people only bother to cast a vote why is it that the position in question is not left vacant since most people have decided that either no candidate is worthy of the position?

Or most people have decided that either candidate is worthy of the position?

Or most people have decided that the position isn't important enough to be worthy of their attention?

Or that the 20% of their fellow citizens who actually care about such things seem to be muddling along just fine without them, and they have better things to do that day?

But okay, sure: Let's set it up such that if an election doesn't attract at least a quorum of voters, then the position remains unfilled. But show me a position that can go unfilled, and I'll show you a position that didn't need to be created in the first place. Instead of agonizing about whether or not to force people to come out and vote for a position they don't really need, why not eliminate the pointless position and the pointless election that comes with it?

And how do you know that it's not an indicator that people aren't happy with the system?

How do you know it is an indicator that people aren't happy with the system? And again, why should I care what their reasons are? They're free citizens in a free country. Any time their unhappiness with the system rises to the level of actually mattering to them, they're free to go and vote themselves a better system.

Here's an idea: Instead of passing a law requiring people to vote whether they want to or not, how about working to give them meaningful elections and convince them that voting is worth their time? And if you can't succeed at that (or working at it isn't worth your time), then why not let them decide for themselves what to care about?

So you believe in stronger local governments over state or federal ones?

In general, yes. In the US the power of the federal government over the lives of individuals is inversely proportional to the influence individuals have over the federal government. This strikes me as a perverse and toxic state of affairs.

For one thing, it seems to result in a sort of sick fetishization of national elections, and distracts from the local politics that should actually matter more, and that indviduals can actually influence directly (not to mention that even in national elections, voters will have more influence by getting involved with their local party, instead than self-aggrandizingly marching into a booth on election day and pulling a lever for "the president of the United States").

Isn't your conclusion sort of relying on the premise that if you are required to vote that you are required to fill in the ballot?

No, it's not. I hope that I've already cleared up the misunderstanding about what I meant by "abstain".

My argument is relying on the premises that a free citizen choosing to stay home on election day produces just as democratic a result as the citizen who casts a vote; and that making them go to the polling place doesn't actually solve any of the problems that have been suggested so far.

I'm saying, let's not make a fetish of People Voting For Things, and here it seems Australia has gone ahead and made it their state religion.

 

[theprestige]

And the ACA (congress) and the court were put in place...how?

Probably through some kind of balloting process; I'll have to check my notes to be sure.

I was just nitpicking your flawed conception of where the drastic change is coming from, and what the Court's role is.

 

[Howie Felterbush]

Whoops! I guess I got my quote tags crossed. Sorry 'bout that.

And I'm sorry for any other confusion I may have caused. What I meant by "abstain" was, "decline to travel to a polling place and register a vote (null or otherwise)". Which, in Australia, is illegal.

So, returning to my original question to you (not angrysoba) -- What is undemocratic about deciding to stay home on election day?



Why should I care what people believe or why the decide voting isn't worth their time and effort? What's important to me is that--whatever their reason--they have the freedom to decide for themselves what level of participation matters to them.

Besides, if 60% of people don't think their vote matters, the solution isn't to force them to go and vote anyway. And if they're right, then I'd say your democracy has far worse problems than requiring people who know better to waste their time participating in a pointless ritual.



Or most people have decided that either candidate is worthy of the position?

Or most people have decided that the position isn't important enough to be worthy of their attention?

Or that the 20% of their fellow citizens who actually care about such things seem to be muddling along just fine without them, and they have better things to do that day?

But okay, sure: Let's set it up such that if an election doesn't attract at least a quorum of voters, then the position remains unfilled. But show me a position that can go unfilled, and I'll show you a position that didn't need to be created in the first place. Instead of agonizing about whether or not to force people to come out and vote for a position they don't really need, why not eliminate the pointless position and the pointless election that comes with it?



How do you know it is an indicator that people aren't happy with the system? And again, why should I care what their reasons are? They're free citizens in a free country. Any time their unhappiness with the system rises to the level of actually mattering to them, they're free to go and vote themselves a better system.

Here's an idea: Instead of passing a law requiring people to vote whether they want to or not, how about working to give them meaningful elections and convince them that voting is worth their time? And if you can't succeed at that (or working at it isn't worth your time), then why not let them decide for themselves what to care about?


In general, yes. In the US the power of the federal government over the lives of individuals is inversely proportional to the influence individuals have over the federal government. This strikes me as a perverse and toxic state of affairs.

For one thing, it seems to result in a sort of sick fetishization of national elections, and distracts from the local politics that should actually matter more, and that indviduals can actually influence directly (not to mention that even in national elections, voters will have more influence by getting involved with their local party, instead than self-aggrandizingly marching into a booth on election day and pulling a lever for "the president of the United States").



No, it's not. I hope that I've already cleared up the misunderstanding about what I meant by "abstain".

My argument is relying on the premises that a free citizen choosing to stay home on election day produces just as democratic a result as the citizen who casts a vote; and that making them go to the polling place doesn't actually solve any of the problems that have been suggested so far.

I'm saying, let's not make a fetish of People Voting For Things, and here it seems Australia has gone ahead and made it their state religion.

This.

Squared.

 

[ZirconBlue]

In reference to the bolded. They will all be shot down in the courts system eventually. This is how our system works.

Unless we keep electing conservative presidents who appoint conservative SC justices.

 

[SezMe]

In reference to the bolded. They will all be shot down in the courts system eventually. This is how our system works.

The key word is "eventually". Which I would guess means decades. In the mean time, injustice in this matter abounds.

 

[Complexity]

I didn't say it was your responsibility. I said it was an abdication of your role in choosing the people who will dictate a portion of your life. Apathy is stupid in light of the reality that the people who win elections control facets of your fate. You're not planning on choosing apathy, so this isn't directed at you.

These people may think they are dictating a portion of my life, but I don't regard their 'authority' as legitimate. They are merely thugs.

 

[Complexity]

So people who consistently vote their own values are sheep, eh? Nice attitude.

Nice strawman.

Sheeple are people who are as brainless and easily manipulable as sheep (sorry, sheep - you have more brains and are more noble and independent than these morons, but I had to pick on some poor critter).

 

[SezMe]

Nice strawman.

Sheeple are people who are as brainless and easily manipulable as sheep (sorry, sheep - you have more brains and are more noble and independent than these morons, but I had to pick on some poor critter).

It's not a strawman. Your definition above is not the same thing that I responded to:

When you are surrounded by sheeple who, election after election, vote for one of the major groups of thugs over the other, ....

You defined sheeple as people who vote in a consistent manner. That you don't like their values is just fine, but that does not make them "sheeple".

This is off-topic. If you want to reply, fine, but I'll drop it with this post.

 

[joolz]

Do you think that people should vote if they can? If you are allowed to vote in your country is it not an insult to those who died for your country if you do not vote in your country's elections?

By the way, in Australia, I hear that it is illegal not to vote if you can. Is there anything undemocratic about that too?

Any thoughts?

My thoughts: Working people have not always had the vote in many countries. Women were denied the vote for a long time after men got the vote. Look at countries where they aren't allowed to vote, or where unscrupulous dictators fake the results. The people who got us the right to vote often fought hard to get it, and there are many people who achieved this, not just the military. How can we turn around now and say we don't give a toss about what they did for us?

It's an old fashioned word, but I believe it is your duty to use your ballot paper. Ideally you should vote for the best candidate, if not then vote for the 'least worst' candidate, but you'll see that I said 'use your ballot paper' as sometimes the candidates are all as bad as each other, in that case you should still use your hard fought for right, even if it is just to spoil* the ballot paper (spoiled papers are counted in the UK). I have voted every time there's been an election, and I will continue to do so. Until the last 6 months or so I have always had a party to vote for. Next time I'm not so sure, but my vote will be recorded, I won't be the person who stayed at home and didn't care.

I'm undecided about the Oz system, I don't like forcing people to do things, but I feel that everyone should always choose to exercise their right to vote. It upsets me when you only see 40 or 50% turn-out for an election. If I hear someone complaining about the government or local authority or their union rep, I always ask 'did you vote?' and if they say 'no' then I don't listen to them as they have no right to complain if they didn't use their ballot paper.

Tsukasa Buddha is wrong to assume that non-voters are 'sending a message' to anyone. How can they when apathy is not a coherent message? Even if I register my vote by spoiling my ballot paper I am still not sending a message. I am simply recording my vote as I believe I have a duty to. If the candidates see that as a message that they are all rubbish then that is their choice, but I do it for myself, so I can say that I took part.

That's why I was also upset by Lanzy's comment about '[t]hrowing your vote away for a 3rd party'. I don't see it like that at all. You are exercising your right to make your choice. If all the apathetic people voted then you may find the third party having more success.

Maybe I'm just old fashioned, or maybe it's the way I was brought up, but I'd feel I was insulting a lot of people if I didn't use my ballot paper. Just my opinion, since you asked for it



*Not sure if you can do this on the American electronic ballots, there should be a 'none of the above' button.

 

[theprestige]

If all the apathetic people voted then you may find the third party having more success.

Why does everybody talk about "voter apathy" like they know for sure that's what it is, and like "voter apathy" is such a bad thing?

I think if third parties were more successful at engaging with voters, they'd have more success at the polls. It's not the voters' responsibility to care about uncompelling third parties.

 

[angrysoba]

I think that if you aren't a resident of Arlington, you shouldn't presume to speak for them politically.

And voting with your feet is about as democratic as it gets.

Yep and...

I question any person's right to speak on behalf of those buried in Arlington, or anywhere. The fact that they died in combat doesn't say one word about their opinion on whether people should vote. Indeed, if anything it's extremely likely that they would have held a range of opinions on the matter, including a substantial number who don't care one way or the other.


Yes, I do. But I think they should do so because they want to do so, because they think it is important to do so. Not because they are compelled to do so by pressure from others, let alone by the law.


No it isn't. It is, however, an insult to those who died for their country to presume that they must all have had any particular opinion on that issue.

Yep!