Should You Vote If You Can?

I think people should always go to vote. But personally, from now on, I shall probably spoil my ballot paper. I prefer spoiling ballot papers to just abstaining, because abstaining can be construed as apathy, whereas the truth is that it's something I feel strongly about.
 
NWO Sentryman said:
[The problem with voting is who to vote for? In every election, it's always a choice between the mainstram parties (who are all but the same, regardless of the red, blue or yellow tie that they wear). Don't even bother voting for third parties, because they barely register in the election.
Click to expand...
This is where instant runoff voting would really make a difference. One could vote for their real preference without the fear that you're just throwing your vote away. I wish it were more common.
 
Actually in Australia you do not have to vote. You need to turn up and get your name crossed off. Not sure at what point you can walk out after that. However, no one can see what you have written on the ballot paper. It is 100% legal to write "informal vote" on the paper.

The effect of compulsory voting is that the candidates try to get you to vote for them and not just to vote. We also have absentee and postal voting. Elections are run by an Australian government department, not the states.

What does upset me is that my (and many other people's) vote do not count for much as I live in a safe seat. That is what is undemocratic.
 
I think voting is over rated, you want to think your vote counts but in national elections it rarely does. Throwing your vote away for a 3rd party with no chance really seems like a waste of effort.
With luck you live in a state that is closely split red/blue, then voting might help.
 
theprestige said:
I don't know about, say Australia, but here in the US it seems to be because third parties (and their voters) seem to have the attitude that any third party should automatically get nationwide status and recognition, just because they're fielding a candidate for national office.

I think that third parties would be a lot less laughable if they focused on local and regional elections. If you can't even convince a single district in a single city to elect a Green candidate to a single city council seat, you have no business running for state office, let alone national office. And yet the Green party always seems to want to skip all those intermediate steps, and get free credibility at the national level.
Click to expand...

Successful third parties, like today's version of the Democratic party and today's version of the Republican party, have always started at the local level and only went national after they were already electing national representatives.
 
angrysoba said:
I think it would be undemocratic if there was no option to either abstain or spoil your ballot.
Click to expand...
Yes - in Australia, no-one can prevent you from turning in a blank ballot or drawing pictures of penises on it, or anything else. Such a ballot is called informal, and is discarded without being counted.

Complexity said:
Write in someone you actually would like to see in that office.
Click to expand...
Such a ballot would be informal in this country, and would be discarded without being counted.

rjh01 said:
What does upset me is that my (and many other people's) vote do not count for much as I live in a safe seat. That is what is undemocratic.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure I agree. What it means is that you live in an area where your views do not coincide with the views of the majority. Your seat is "safe" because it's expected that a majority of people in your community will vote for a particular party. That's not undemocratic, that's a reflection of the community you live in.
 
theprestige said:
I don't know about, say Australia, but here in the US it seems to be because third parties (and their voters) seem to have the attitude that any third party should automatically get nationwide status and recognition, just because they're fielding a candidate for national office.

I think that third parties would be a lot less laughable if they focused on local and regional elections. If you can't even convince a single district in a single city to elect a Green candidate to a single city council seat, you have no business running for state office, let alone national office. And yet the Green party always seems to want to skip all those intermediate steps, and get free credibility at the national level.
Click to expand...

This


I've been harping about the importance of local elections for years, not just as far as 3rd party's go but just as far as directly impacting your life goes. people put too much stock in the Federal Govt and it's policies and seem to not pay any attention to the city govt until they do something that they absolutely hate.
 
angrysoba said:
On another thread, in the USA Politics forum, Sez replied to another poster who said they wouldn't vote in the 2012 elections:



"Here" is the Arlington Cemetery, which is where US servicemen and women are buried.

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?

[Personally, I find it a bit of a stretch to say that each person at Arlington was fighting to ensure freedom. In fact, even if it were true that each person was genuinely fighting for the Constitution, I don't seem to remember anywhere in the Constitution enshrining the right to vote, only the conditions under which people may not be prevented from voting.]

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?
Click to expand...

Vote Romney, vote often.
 
rjh01 said:
What does upset me is that my (and many other people's) vote do not count for much as I live in a safe seat. That is what is undemocratic.
Click to expand...

Your vote counts as much as any other vote, safe seat or not. It's perfectly democratic. You just happen to be outvoted.
 
If the same two clowns are around at the next election, I will be voting informal in the house of representatives election. (I will still cast a valid vote for the senate election since the proportional representation system ensures that a third party candidate has a chance of being elected).
 
kerikiwi said:
Your vote counts as much as any other vote, safe seat or not. It's perfectly democratic. You just happen to be outvoted.
Click to expand...

Correct. Also in Australia your vote for the Upper House (the Senate) always counts.

If voting were voluntary here, you would get a 30% turn out IMO. People don't really give a stuff.
 
theprestige said:
How is abstention undemocratic?
Click to expand...

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

If only 20% of people bother to vote, that tells me that 80% of citizens have found more important and satisfying things to do with their resources. That's just as democratic an outcome as any other.
Click to expand...

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?

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?

To me, this is as it should be. 20% voter turnout means a government that is not particularly intrusive, controversial, or burdensome to its people.
Click to expand...

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

Ideally a government should be trivial, if not irrelevant, to the daily lives of its citizens. To the extent that it /is/ relevant, it should be locally relevant, so that each local citizen who chooses to vote actually has an impact on the outcome of whatever it is that is affecting his daily life.
Click to expand...

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

This constant obsession with what the government is doing and what we have to do about it, is unhealthy.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

People should be allowed to decide for themselves if voting matters. And of course they should be able to vote any time they decide it matters. But it shouldn't matter all the time, and I'm against government intrusions into that decision, forcing citizens to pretend it matters when it really doesn't (or shouldn't).
Click to expand...

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?
 
kerikiwi said:
Your vote counts as much as any other vote, safe seat or not. It's perfectly democratic. You just happen to be outvoted.
Click to expand...

arthwollipot said:
<snip>

I'm not sure I agree. What it means is that you live in an area where your views do not coincide with the views of the majority. Your seat is "safe" because it's expected that a majority of people in your community will vote for a particular party. That's not undemocratic, that's a reflection of the community you live in.
Click to expand...

That is not what I am trying to say. In a safe seat it does not matter what I think of the parties I already know who will win that seat. So does everyone else. I may be happy to vote for the person who will win or otherwise. That is not important. However if I live in a marginal seat then I help decide which person gets elected. No-one can really say who will win the seat before the vote. My vote will help decide this issue. Yes, whether the seat is safe or not is a reflection of the community (ie the people in the electorate) I live in.


The only good thing is that in the next Australian federal election just about every labour seat in the country will be marginal. People in previously safe labour seats will decide (as a group) if they want the result to be a whitewash or some other result. People in safe Liberal seats will have very little say.
 
angrysoba said:
"Here" is the Arlington Cemetery, which is where US servicemen and women are buried.
Click to expand...
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.

Do you think that people should vote if they can?
Click to expand...
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.

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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Lanzy said:
I think voting is over rated, you want to think your vote counts but in national elections it rarely does. Throwing your vote away for a 3rd party with no chance really seems like a waste of effort.
With luck you live in a state that is closely split red/blue, then voting might help.
Click to expand...

I can say with 100% certainty that my state and especially my district will be blue this time around. My vote really counts for naught in that respect. I could vote for Kodos and have just as much of an impact as voting for Obama or the GOP candidate would have as far as electoral votes go.

I will vote, but only because of the state and local propositions and issues. There my vote may help make a difference. Come September or so I'll start seriously thinking about who I might vote for on the national level but not before then. Six months can be an eternity as far as national politics go and a lot can happen between now and November. I can say that if the vote were tomorrow I would not be voting for Obama again 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.

Kodos for POTUS!
 
Wildy said:
So you believe in stronger local governments over state or federal ones?
Click to expand...
This does seem to be a particularly American attitude.

Australia is one country divided into states for administrative purposes. America consists of individual states that have agreed to join together in certain ways to make a country.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom