Why low voter turnout is a good sign

[Cecil]

http://muller.lbl.gov/TRessays/21-Bizarre_Math.htm

In real elections, the positions of the candidates on issues may not be absolutely immutable. Both L and R realize this, so to maximize their chance of winning, they both start shifting towards the middle. They both know that whoever best takes possession of the middle will get the most votes.

With both candidates moving towards the center, many people ultimately see such little difference that they lose interest in the election.

Interesting essay on first read, though I haven't completely thought it through yet. What do you think?

ETA: 666! This post is the work of the devil.

 

[Zep]

Consider if voting was compulsory... What difference would that make?

 

[Sushi]

Why is being moderate a good thing? It means just trying to appeal to the greatest number of whiners that want more pork in their pocket and to give concessions to those who don't deserve them (creationists).

 

[Freakshow]

Why is being moderate a good thing? It means just trying to appeal to the greatest number of whiners that want more pork in their pocket and to give concessions to those who don't deserve them (creationists).

It is a good thing (during the campaign) for those who are seeking to get elected simply because they want power. It's amazing how, after the campaign is over, positions can shift.

 

[Ryokan]

In REAL elections, there are more than just two alternatives

 

[Kodiak]

Consider if voting was compulsory... What difference would that make?

You're right...no real difference. Just a further erosion of citizen's rights in America.

 

[Zep]

You're right...no real difference. Just a further erosion of citizen's rights in America.

Say what??

 

[Kodiak]

Say what??

I understand your confusion...you're not an American.

ETA - To be clear: Compulsory voting would (arguably) constitute an erosion of rights in the U.S.

 

[Zep]

I understand your confusion...you're not an American.

ETA - To be clear: Compulsory voting would (arguably) constitute an erosion of rights in the U.S.

I understand the words, I am just confused on the argument.

I can only gather that the right to NOT vote is what you are talking about here. Personally, I would call such an action "avoiding your civic duties as a responsible adult citizen". My attitude would be that if you didn't vote, you lose the right to complain about politicians who were elected by those who DID vote.

I've also noted that the vast majority of an election campaign that is not compulsory is convincing people to actually turn up and vote, NOT necessarily on the issues being voted on. Another way to look at it is that it diverts energy and money away from the important issues. I'd be willing to bet that if voting was compulsory, and the politicians knew in advance that EVERYONE was voting, they would rapidly change their focus to the relevant issues and arguments instead. Which is a good thing, no?

I can only ask: What is so irksome about making your electoral desires known by voting? What rights do you actually lose if it were made compulsory?

 

[Kodiak]

I understand the words, I am just confused on the argument.

I can only gather that the right to NOT vote is what you are talking about here. Personally, I would call such an action "avoiding your civic duties as a responsible adult citizen". My attitude would be that if you didn't vote, you lose the right to complain about politicians who were elected by those who DID vote.

I've also noted that the vast majority of an election campaign that is not compulsory is convincing people to actually turn up and vote, NOT necessarily on the issues being voted on. Another way to look at it is that it diverts energy and money away from the important issues. I'd be willing to bet that if voting was compulsory, and the politicians knew in advance that EVERYONE was voting, they would rapidly change their focus to the relevant issues and arguments instead. Which is a good thing, no?

I can only ask: What is so irksome about making your electoral desires known by voting? What rights do you actually lose if it were made compulsory?

A "vast majoity"? Evidence please...

Don't get me wrong. I've voted in every election, local, state, and national, since I was 18, which includes absentee ballots when I was stationed in Hohenfels, West Germany for 2 years while in the US Army.

To answer your second question, you lose the freedom of choice to not participate, whether its because of ignorance, disinterest or even perhaps protest.

The easiest way to piss off a whole bunch of Americans is to tell them that they have to do something.

 

[The idea]

My attitude would be that if you didn't vote, you lose the right to complain about politicians who were elected by those who DID vote.

You literally think that free speech rights are lost in that case?

What rights do you actually lose if it were made compulsory?

The votes of people who have studied the issues and the candidates and who are voting for candidates who are not very well-known might be overwhelmed by the votes of people who don't choose to study the issues or the candidates.

 

[Kodiak]

You literally think that free speech rights are lost in that case?

I think (hope) he means in the sense that a person who chose to not vote would be a hypocrit if he later complained about referedums that passed or officials who were elected to office.

 

[Kodiak]

The votes of people who have studied the issues and the candidates and who are voting for candidates who are not very well-known might be overwhelmed by the votes of people who don't choose to study the issues or the candidates.

I have nightmares of people getting their mandatory ballot/post card in the mail (after all, if its mandatory, who's going to want to go to the ballot boxes if a "NO POSTAGE NECESSARY IN THE U.S." absentee ballot is available?), closing their eyes, and just placing X's randomly up and down the ballot...

 

[Tmy]

http://muller.lbl.gov/TRessays/21-Bizarre_Math.htm

Interesting essay on first read, though I haven't completely thought it through yet. What do you think?

ETA: 666! This post is the work of the devil.

What about the primary? before you get to the election you need to win your parties primary, possibly by being "more republican" that the other dude. So youd be more of an extremist.

 

[The idea]

For mathematical reasons, wouldn't we typically be talking about a collection of nonvoting complainers who are "collectively hypocritical", whatever that means? An individual who would ordinarily be a nonvoter does not, by voting, affect any other people who are ordinarily nonvoters. An individual who would ordinarily be a nonvoter typically does not, by voting, affect the outcome.

 

[shanek]

Consider if voting was compulsory... What difference would that make?

You would only a) destroy freedom (as if it weren't already severely wounded), and b) increase the number of write-in votes for Mickey Mouse.

 

[Tmy]

For mathematical reasons, wouldn't we typically be talking about a collection of nonvoting complainers who are "collectively hypocritical", whatever that means? An individual who would ordinarily be a nonvoter does not, by voting, affect any other people who are ordinarily nonvoters. An individual who would ordinarily be a nonvoter typically does not, by voting, affect the outcome.

I pay taxes. I have a right to complain all I want. Whether I vote or not.

 

[Kodiak]

An individual who would ordinarily be a nonvoter typically does not, by voting, affect the outcome.

I was following you until the sentence above.

Could you provide premises for this conclusion, keeping in mind that voter turnout would go from its current level(s) (whatever they are) to 100%?

 

[The idea]

Suppose an election is widely believed to be a contest between X and Y, even though there are other candidates besides X and Y.

Typically you do not vote. You know people who know that and who are themselves typically nonvoters and who have made it clear that they dislike candidate Y more than candidate X. Suppose there are about six or seven such people and you tell them all, "This time I'm going to vote and I'm going to vote for candidate Y." Then you don't actually vote, but they don't know that.

Isn't it likely that you would affect the election more that way than by quietly voting for candidate X?

 

[The idea]

I was following you until the sentence above.

Could you provide premises for this conclusion, keeping in mind that voter turnout would go from its current level(s) (whatever they are) to 100%?

By "outcome" I meant the actual result (such as who wins). I didn't mean the numbers received by the candidates.

Voter turnout seems irrelevant since I'm only talking about a single individual.

Edited to add: To clarify, I was responding to this:

My attitude would be that if you didn't vote, you lose the right to complain about politicians who were elected by those who DID vote.