it's wrong to vote. it's right to be forced to vote

[latent aaaack]

If it's your goal to always act rationally and use your time and energy sensibly and purposefully you shouldn't vote. The only justified reason to vote is to make some difference, however small. But the only real way that your voting will cause any difference whatsoever is if the election is so close that it comes down to a single vote out of millions. To my knowledge this has never happened in history and the likelihood of it is so small, it's a waste of time and energy the way playing multi-state lotteries are.

But assuming it's better that one particular candidate wins and assuming it's important that democracy functions, it still is very important and desirable that a large amount of people of all sorts vote - just not you. If everyone acted logically they would realize this and democracy would die. That's why it's only right for you to choose to vote if there is a law that says you will be punished if you don't.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I can't count the number of times I've been given that definition for "having one's vote matter". But I can count the number of times people have tried to establish that definition, zero.

 

[lionking]

Have a look at the last Australian election. If only a few thousand votes were changed, the result would have been different. In the election before last, my electorate was decided by 6 votes. Individual votes indeed count.

 

[rjh01]

If you want to make your vote count then you can do these things
1. Move to a marginal seat.
2. Join and participate in a political party.
3. Join and participate in a pressure group.
4. Talk politics with many people. Try to convince them of your political views.

 

[bjornart]

If it's your goal to always act rationally and use your time and energy sensibly and purposefully you shouldn't vote. The only justified reason to vote is to make some difference, however small. But the only real way that your voting will cause any difference whatsoever is if the election is so close that it comes down to a single vote out of millions. To my knowledge this has never happened in history and the likelihood of it is so small, it's a waste of time and energy the way playing multi-state lotteries are.

But assuming it's better that one particular candidate wins and assuming it's important that democracy functions, it still is very important and desirable that a large amount of people of all sorts vote - just not you. If everyone acted logically they would realize this and democracy would die. That's why it's only right for you to choose to vote if there is a law that says you will be punished if you don't.

My actions don't matter statistically when viewed in isolation, therefore nothing I do matters and I should just kill myself.

 

[theprestige]

If you want to make your vote count then you can do these things
1. Move to a marginal seat.
2. Join and participate in a political party.
3. Join and participate in a pressure group.
4. Talk politics with many people. Try to convince them of your political views.

This.

We don't have a Green president, not because Green votes don't matter, but because Green opinions aren't very convincing.

 

[Cuddles]

It depends a lot on the voting system used. In a first past the post system, such as in the UK, it's actually true that a lot of votes simply don't count at all. As soon as one candidate has 50%, any further votes are completely wasted. Since many seats have gone to the same party with a huge majority for decades, anyone voting against that party may as well not vote at all. On the other hand, with a full PR system votes are not thrown out in the same manner, so your vote counts even if you're voting for a minority party.

This.

We don't have a Green president, not because Green votes don't matter, but because Green opinions aren't very convincing.

As above, it depends. Look at the last election in the UK, for example. The Lib Dems actually had a very significant proportion of the vote, but ended up with an insanely small number of seats because of the messed up electoral system. We wouldn't have actually had a Lib Dem government, but they would at least have become a significant party to challenge the other two. In that case, it seems the Lib Dem arguments really were convincing, but most of their votes simply didn't matter.

 

[Beerina]

If it's your goal to always act rationally and use your time and energy sensibly and purposefully you shouldn't vote. The only justified reason to vote is to make some difference, however small. But the only real way that your voting will cause any difference whatsoever is if the election is so close that it comes down to a single vote out of millions. To my knowledge this has never happened in history and the likelihood of it is so small, it's a waste of time and energy the way playing multi-state lotteries are.

But assuming it's better that one particular candidate wins and assuming it's important that democracy functions, it still is very important and desirable that a large amount of people of all sorts vote - just not you. If everyone acted logically they would realize this and democracy would die. That's why it's only right for you to choose to vote if there is a law that says you will be punished if you don't.

Insofar as forcing everyone to vote means everyone votes, and thus the decisions are "more righteous" in some political/democratic sense, I submit that is a bad thing for exactly that reason.

Too much power is up for grabs at an election -- better to be stripping government of so much power than adding to the meme that the wielding of that power, no matter how crazy and intrusive, is A-OK as long as everyone votes for it.

The historical misery of human existence derives from the fact that anyone can wield the power to tell others what to do, not what or how said power is acquired and used. Hence it should be massively restricted on principle.

 

[dudalb]

I hate the idea of forcing people to vote because it means you have a lot of people who don't give a damn about current events and pay no attention to them casting their ballots in total ignorance.

 

[Dave Rogers]

But assuming it's better that one particular candidate wins and assuming it's important that democracy functions, it still is very important and desirable that a large amount of people of all sorts vote - just not you. If everyone acted logically they would realize this and democracy would die. That's why it's only right for you to choose to vote if there is a law that says you will be punished if you don't.

Alternatively, it's right for you to vote if you have a non-negligible understanding of game theory.

Dave

 

[Wildy]

If it's your goal to always act rationally and use your time and energy sensibly and purposefully you shouldn't vote.

Even if you would be fined if you didn't? To an Australian all you've said here is "I don't care who gets in but I really want to give them $20".

The only justified reason to vote is to make some difference, however small. But the only real way that your voting will cause any difference whatsoever is if the election is so close that it comes down to a single vote out of millions. To my knowledge this has never happened in history and the likelihood of it is so small, it's a waste of time and energy the way playing multi-state lotteries are.

As others have already mentioned this depends on the electoral system of your country.

If you happen to live in a country with proportional representation which requires candidates/parties to receive a minimum number of votes then of course your vote would count.

If you happen to live in a country that uses a plurality system then whether you are correct at all depends on many other factors. People have already mentioned marginal seats, and first past the post systems do require a lot of work.

In a country, like Australia, which uses a preferential system then I would say that every vote, no matter where it is cast, counts. Since preferences flow to other parties as the respective candidates are eliminated ever vote could affect the final result, especially when you get down to the last few parties. That has actually happened here where seats have been won based on who came third. I believe that was how the Greens took the seat of Melbourne, the Liberal Party came third and the preferences went to the Greens.

But assuming it's better that one particular candidate wins and assuming it's important that democracy functions, it still is very important and desirable that a large amount of people of all sorts vote - just not you.

What? Perhaps it's because it's 2:30 in the morning here, but that makes no sense whatsoever. If I voted wouldn't I be part of that "large amount of people"?

That's why it's only right for you to choose to vote if there is a law that says you will be punished if you don't.

No. It's still right for someone to vote even if there is no punishment for not voting. Nearly every democracy in the world functions on a voluntary voting system and people still turn out to vote. The system wouldn't work otherwise. Australia has a compulsory voting system and even then the turnout is never 100%. The people who really don't want to vote will just pay the fine.

If you were forced to vote for a specific party would that be right? You are being forced to vote after all.

 

[ddt]

If it's your goal to always act rationally and use your time and energy sensibly and purposefully you shouldn't vote. The only justified reason to vote is to make some difference, however small. But the only real way that your voting will cause any difference whatsoever is if the election is so close that it comes down to a single vote out of millions. To my knowledge this has never happened in history and the likelihood of it is so small, it's a waste of time and energy the way playing multi-state lotteries are.

I can remember a certain episode in Florida in 2000 where it came down to very low numbers. A few people more voting for Gore would have mattered. But of course, you can't pinpoint whose vote is the decisive one - none of them individually is. I can't, however, fathom how you could argue that you can't miss 10 minutes every 4 years to do your part in electing those who represent your interests in parliament.

I hate the idea of forcing people to vote because it means you have a lot of people who don't give a damn about current events and pay no attention to them casting their ballots in total ignorance.

Yes. They'd either cast their vote for some party without thinking about it - and as it is, too many people who go to vote actually do so - or much more likely, would cast their vote for a protest party. Imagine those 25% non-voters at the last Dutch election casting their votes overwhelmingly for Wilders - he wouldn't have had 16% but over 35% of the votes. Thanks but no thanks.

 

[The Fool]

Too often politicians thump the tub and proclaim they have a mandate from the people when in fact they have the most forced ticks.


Compulsory voting forces me to annoint someone with my support when I may feel nobody presented to me is worth a chicken dropping and certainly doesn't deserve to be crowing that they have my support.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Compulsory voting forces me to annoint someone with my support when I may feel nobody presented to me is worth a chicken dropping and certainly doesn't deserve to be crowing that they have my support.

If you don't support anyone, can't you simply enter a blank or spoilt ballot paper?

Honestly asking here, I don't know how the Australian system works.

Dave

 

[Beerina]

I'm with Jeff Greenfield, who said, in an election eve commentary in the '80s, and pardon my mangling because I can't find the quote online, "You've heard a lot about get-out-the-vote recently. I'd like to say that if you don't care enough to go vote, don't. Don't pollute the vote of those who care and who have studied the issues."

 

[Damien Evans]

If you don't support anyone, can't you simply enter a blank or spoilt ballot paper?

Honestly asking here, I don't know how the Australian system works.

Dave

Yes. As long as you put the paper in the box, they don't care what you write on it.

 

[Wildy]

If you don't support anyone, can't you simply enter a blank or spoilt ballot paper?

Honestly asking here, I don't know how the Australian system works.

Dave

Pretty much. People sometimes write names on the ballot, like Mickey Mouse or Darth Vader.

 

[Dave Rogers]

There you go then, The Fool. Compulsory voting doesn't force you to vote, it just forces you into a position where the marginal cost to you of voting is zero. You can still withold your support from all the candidates if you want to.

Dave

 

[Cuddles]

I hate the idea of forcing people to vote because it means you have a lot of people who don't give a damn about current events and pay no attention to them casting their ballots in total ignorance.

Of course, the trouble with this is that it's exactly what happens anyway.

 

[Halcyon Dayz]

If it's your goal to always act rationally and use your time and energy sensibly and purposefully you shouldn't vote.

On Election Day I'm always hoping that everybody but me would think like that.

No such luck so far.