Should voting be encouraged?

[toddjh]

I'm posting this here rather than in the U.S. election forum because it's not limited to the U.S. In fact, it might apply even more to other countries.

In an election year, you can't so much as turn on a television without seeing a "public service" announcement telling people to get out and vote. They're everywhere.

People seem to take it as a given that encouraging people to vote is a good thing, but let me wax skeptical for a moment and ask whether it really is. If people aren't motivated enough to vote without all this pushing, can they possibly be motivated enough to do the research so they can vote responsibly?

Does it do any good to get people to vote if they're going to do it half-assed? Are 100 million lazy voters better than 10 million motivated ones? My gut feeling is no. I think I would prefer a smaller number of more involved voters. Some people call that elitist, saying that I'm espousing a "class system" in which the majority have no representation. However, I don't see a problem with this -- as long as the opportunity to vote remains open to everyone, this "ruling class" is entirely self-selected. The only real concern I can see is that motivated extremists might have a disproportionate impact on the outcome, but I don't know if that objection is fatal -- it's not like the general population makes terrific voting choices, either.

Still, I don't want to jump to conclusions. Is there any evidence out there that shows what effect encouraging voting has? I'm also interested what the effects have been in countries like Australia where voting is compulsory. I really don't know how you'd quantify something like this, but maybe someone has a good idea.

What are your impressions of encouraging/requiring voting? Is it good or bad?

Jeremy

 

[The Don]

If only the truly agitated vote then there's an increasing likelihood that single issue, or extremist, candidates will be returned. This in turn may cause even greater disaffection with the democratic process.

[not being serious] Perhaps some kind of "voting wizard" could be implemented where you state your position on various issues and based on this your vote is placed might be a way of getting the disinterested to at least place their vote in accord with their beliefs [/not being serious]

 

[Luke T.]

I think it is important for everyone to vote precisely to keep the extremists from dictating public policy. The only way to know where the middle of the road really is is for everyone to vote.

 

[Luke T.]

Ah. I see The Don is on the same wavelength as me.

 

[toddjh]

I think it is important for everyone to vote precisely to keep the extremists from dictating public policy. The only way to know where the middle of the road really is is for everyone to vote.

But is the middle of the road preferable? What is it about the "everyman" that makes his opinion a moderating influence? I think this presupposes that the average person is more level-headed than the majority of those who would choose to vote, which I am not sure is true.

Jeremy

 

[Luke T.]

But is the middle of the road preferable? What is it about the "everyman" that makes his opinion a moderating influence? I think this presupposes that the average person is more level-headed than the majority of those who would choose to vote, which I am not sure is true.

Jeremy

Extremists tend to want dramatic changes from the status quo while the "everyman" prefers the status quo, and that is your moderating influence.

 

[toddjh]

Extremists tend to want dramatic changes from the status quo while the "everyman" prefers the status quo, and that is your moderating influence.

But that's a positive thing only if the status quo is preferable. Is it, usually? I'm not prepared to make that statement.

And again, we're talking about people who don't really care to begin with. I'm not convinced that sort of person would vote on any issues, but rather for the candidate with the best name, or vote a straight ticket for the party they think they like, even if they know nothing about the candidates running under that umbrella, etc.

It's definitely not a simple issue, but it's hard for me to accept that people voting who just don't give a damn will somehow magically result in consistently better results. Is there any evidence out there either way? I'm really curious.

Jeremy

 

[Tmy]

You assume an involved voter is a "good" voter. People vote for different movtives.

I can be caught up on all the issues and candidates. But if I vote for Joe Smith just cause I will be taxed less, am I a good voter?? What if Joe Smith is racist, has policies that will hurt the poor and elderly, and will do more harm to the country as a whole. Yet I vote based on my wallet.

Maybe we should jude voters on their motives rather than their knowledge.



I always had this idea to encourage voting. Every who votes gets placed in a state lottery and one lucky voter wins $1 million dollars. As sort of voter lottery. Think of the publicity!!

 

[toddjh]

You assume an involved voter is a "good" voter. People vote for different movtives.

I can be caught up on all the issues and candidates. But if I vote for Joe Smith just cause I will be taxed less, am I a good voter?? What if Joe Smith is racist, has policies that will hurt the poor and elderly, and will do more harm to the country as a whole. Yet I vote based on my wallet.

I understand that concern, and it's legitimate. But what I don't understand is why it's better to encourage people to vote for Joe Smith for no real reason, which is certainly the case with a lot of voters.

"Oh, I guess I'm voting for Kerry because my family are Democrats."

"I'm voting for Bush because I'm from Texas."

I hear things like that all the time, don't you? I think that kind of attitude is more common among people who would tend not to vote if it weren't pushed so hard. Is that really preferable to people voting for actual reasons, whether shortsighted or not?

I guess I view lazy voters as a sort of "white noise" in elections. It doesn't contribute anything, it just makes it harder to discern the "signal."

Jeremy

 

[Luke T.]

But that's a positive thing only if the status quo is preferable. Is it, usually? I'm not prepared to make that statement.

In America, it is usually preferable to what the extremists want. I would rather we have the status quo of our nation's laws prior to 9/11 than what we have today, for example. Many of the laws enacted in the heat of 9/11 were a bad idea and the result of extremism. But then again, all of America was a mob for a while after 9/11.

And again, we're talking about people who don't really care to begin with. I'm not convinced that sort of person would vote on any issues, but rather for the candidate with the best name, or vote a straight ticket for the party they think they like, even if they know nothing about the candidates running under that umbrella, etc.

It's definitely not a simple issue, but it's hard for me to accept that people voting who just don't give a damn will somehow magically result in consistently better results. Is there any evidence out there either way? I'm really curious.

Jeremy

I'd rather a voter vote for someone because of "what's in it for me" than have the decision left up to extremists who will tell you what's best for you and make you like it.

 

[Tmy]

I understand that concern, and it's legitimate. But what I don't understand is why it's better to encourage people to vote for Joe Smith for no real reason, which is certainly the case with a lot of voters.

"Oh, I guess I'm voting for Kerry because my family are Democrats."

"I'm voting for Bush because I'm from Texas."

I hear things like that all the time, don't you? I think that kind of attitude is more common among people who would tend not to vote if it weren't pushed so hard. Is that really preferable to people voting for actual reasons, whether shortsighted or not?

I guess I view lazy voters as a sort of "white noise" in elections. It doesn't contribute anything, it just makes it harder to discern the "signal."

Jeremy

Thats why I dont like political designations on the ballot.

Ive heard people say crap like. "Im not voting for Kerry cause he faked war injuries." Which is aload of crap.

I think its human nature that IF you do vote, you will at least try to vote for the guy you like. Look at american idol. Millions vote in that dopey contest.

I think the problem is that people feel that there vote doesnt count and its a pain in the ass to go vote. They could make voting easier. How about having it on the weekend, Saturday and Sunday. Instead of a Tuesday. Tuesdays are so damn inconvienent

 

[Ladewig]

I'm posting this here rather than in the U.S. election forum because it's not limited to the U.S. In fact, it might apply even more to other countries.

In an election year, you can't so much as turn on a television without seeing a "public service" announcement telling people to get out and vote. They're everywhere.

People seem to take it as a given that encouraging people to vote is a good thing, but let me wax skeptical for a moment and ask whether it really is. If people aren't motivated enough to vote without all this pushing, can they possibly be motivated enough to do the research so they can vote responsibly?

I see your point. I've often thought about renting a billboard and putting up the message "Don't Vote." I figure that people who could be talked out of voting by reading a billboard shouldn't be voting in the first place. I imagine that the city council would try to outlaw billboards that suggest that people don't vote, producing yet another example of how few elected officials understand the Bill of Rights.

The only real concern I can see is that motivated extremists might have a disproportionate impact on the outcome, but I don't know if that objection is fatal

Do you mean motivated extremists like Jerry "goodbye evolution, hello school prayer" Falwell who is now boasting that the evangelical Christians control the GOP?

 

[AWPrime]

Personaly I see voting as a duty.

 

[toddjh]

I'd rather a voter vote for someone because of "what's in it for me" than have the decision left up to extremists who will tell you what's best for you and make you like it.

But it's not just extremists who are motivated to vote, and it's not just middle of the road folks who aren't. I think my signal/noise metaphor is a good one. Saying that it's a good thing to turn up the "noise" implies that you believe the "signal" is consistently bad and deserves to be drowned out by what is essentially randomness (i.e. determining a president/congressman/etc. for completely arbitrary reasons). Isn't the whole electoral process in jeopardy if that's the case?

Jeremy

 

[Luke T.]

But it's not just extremists who are motivated to vote, and it's not just middle of the road folks who aren't. I think my signal/noise metaphor is a good one. Saying that it's a good thing to turn up the "noise" implies that you believe the "signal" is consistently bad and deserves to be drowned out by what is essentially randomness (i.e. determining a president/congressman/etc. for completely arbitrary reasons). Isn't the whole electoral process in jeopardy if that's the case?

Jeremy

My example of the "what's in it for me" voter was merely a statement of preference between two evils. In truth, I do not think the common man in our country is as ignorant as you seem to be implying. I think the people are quite well informed as our country has seemed to always ultimately move toward what is right. The abolition of slavery, universal suffrage, and so on. Also, it often doesn't take any special knowledge to know what is the right thing to do.

The "signal" from extremists is where the noise really is. I believe extremists are less informed. Just look at your basic Klansman or Marxist.

edited to add: The abolition of slavery and universal suffrage were both initiated by the extremists of their times. However, the people acted as a moderating influence so that the transition was smoother than it would have been had the extremists gotten their way immediately.

 

[Tmy]

The republicans are against voter encouragement. They always get bent when theres some easy voter registration legistlation.

The groups that tend to have lower % voter turn out are the minorities, the young voters, and the poor. Most of whom would probably vote democratic. The GOP sees that as a threat.

 

[toddjh]

In truth, I do not think the common man in our country is as ignorant as you seem to be implying.

Maybe not. I lose some faith because of the campaign tactics that appear to be successful: the mud-slinging and question-dodging and all that.

edited to add: The abolition of slavery and universal suffrage were both initiated by the extremists of their times. However, the people acted as a moderating influence so that the transition was smoother than it would have been had the extremists gotten their way immediately.

Your other points have some merit, but I have to disagree with this one. Do you think the slaves and the disenfranchised would join you in applauding the fact that the transition was "smooth" rather than quick?.

Jeremy

 

[SlippyToad]

But that's a positive thing only if the status quo is preferable. Is it, usually? I'm not prepared to make that statement.

I am. Drastic change is usually catastrophic, and doesn't accomplish its goal. I may be liberal in many ways, but I think history has proven that sudden change is a bad thing, especially for democracies. Caution has its place.

I think voting should be mandatory, quite honestly, and people who don't vote for three years running (or some other reasonable yardstick) should have to pay a fine, or maybe do 500 hours of community service. Its obvious that a lot of election manipulation comes from throwing people with inconvenient opinions off the voting rolls. With mandatory voting, at least that kind of shenanigans wouldn't be happening anymore.

 

[Luke T.]

Maybe not. I lose some faith because of the campaign tactics that appear to be successful: the mud-slinging and question-dodging and all that.

I believe election campaign mudslinging is inversely proportional to the redeeming qualities of the candidates. The less good things that someone can say about their candidate, the more bad they will say about the other. This election is a perfect example. The mudslinging is not because the electorate is stupid and is the only thing they will understand, it is because the candidates are.

Your other points have some merit, but I have to disagree with this one. Do you think the slaves and the disenfranchised would join you in applauding the fact that the transition was "smooth" rather than quick?.

Jeremy

I believe, as Alexis de Tocqueville did, that if slavery had been immediately abolished upon the independence of the United States, we would have seen a race war that would have resulted in the genocide of the entire black population.