I used to think this was a bad idea as it forced people to vote who didn't really care.
In recent years I've come around to the opposite point of view based pretty much entirely on how badly voluntary voting in the US works.
When voting is voluntary there is an incentive with certain groups to dissuade, discourage or simply make it difficult for others to vote. In US elections there have been cases of bribing homeless people to vote with cigarettes or alcohol. Getting into vote can be difficult with long lines.
In Australia pretty much all these problems go away because you have to vote and the AEC (Australian Elecotral Commission) has to provide enough capacity to do so so, unless you go in the first hour or two of the morning, you can typically be in and out in 5-10 minutes tops.
Politicians love an apathetic population. So by all means go out and vote.
http://alicebobandmallory.com/articles/2010/09/23/did-little...
Why should I be forced to show up for your voting-day entertainment?
If you support my right to write-in Mickey Mouse or select "None of the Above" or void my vote, then you're saying nothing more than that you like people being punished for not filling out what you acknowledge to be meaningless paperwork.
(Also, last I checked, there's more than one "Western society" that doesn't have compulsory voting.)
The only way to say 'none of the above' is by filing an informal vote. This is a de-facto way of saying that you don't like any of the options, and at least in Australia this informal vote is tracked and parties take notice of it.
In the USA if you vote to not vote, Washington bundles you in with everybody else and assumes that you have no interest.
The ideal solution would be
a) Voting is mandatory, but with a formal 'none of the above' option
b) Voting is not mandatory, but representation is allocated based on what portion of total people voted for you, not allocated based on the portion of the total vote. (ie. if in one state all 25M people voted, they should get 5 representatives in congress, while if in another state of 50M people only 5M votes, they should only get 1 seat in congress)
With a quota based system based on proportion of population congress/parliament would then be a true representation. It is the only way to reflect the will of the entire population, meaning that those who choose to stay at home can no longer be ignored.
We effectively do have a "none of the above" option: don't select anyone and still cast the ballot. However, it would be better if there was an explicit "No vote" option.
The biggest problem with voting not being mandatory is that a lot of people don't have the opportunity because they can't get off work. If you made voting mandatory (or at least made election day a paid holiday), this impediment might be alleviated.
An alternative, as it's done in Spain, is to give everyone the right to leave their jobs in order to vote. To alleviate things for businesses, all elections happen on Sundays.
However, in this country there is a constant struggle between trying to let more people vote versus trying to restrict voting. Hence why a lot of people are up in arms about potential voter fraud. The traditional wisdom is that more voters helps one party, fewer helps another. With this as a factor, you can see how it would be very difficult to change the day of voting to make it more convenient for people.
The date is set by an act of Congress from 1845.
http://memory.loc.gov/ll/llsl/005/0700/07590721.tif
I think my other arguments still stand though...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election_Day_%28United_States%2...
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepoliticalsystem/a/whenwevot...
I point this out to anyone who complains about how archaic some things in the UK or Europe appear to be.
That just sounds like a lazy excuse to me. I don't know how long it takes to vote in the US, but where I live in Canada, we just finished our municiple elections. It was one of the longest ballots I can remember, yet the entire process, including walking from my house to the polling station and back, took about 20 minutes after work.
I have to say, I just don't understand this voter apathy or this sentiment that if none of the candidates are any good then don't vote. I really do think it is your duty as a citizen.
2 of the 6 machines the precinct received did not verify when turned on. They're an electronic booth with paper printout (yes,what the vote hackers wanted to begin with). However the paper did not agree with the electronic tally, hence machine invalidated.
And they got 4x the turnout they were expecting. Now, usually, it's 20 min in line and 3 min for the vote itself.
Broken electronic voting machines.
Higher than expected turn out resulting in a backlog.
Showing up after work along with a huge group of people doing the same thing.
And don't forget Gerrymandering, in which the party in power redraws the voting district lines to ensure that every district has a majority of their party (though that happens before election day): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering
Edit: I added a few more examples from other replies that represent common methods of intentional sabotage.
All in all I think the preference system and mandatory voting makes for a far healthier democracy.
Me voting for a third-party candidate is does not imply that I would have voted for any other candidate had they not been on the ballot. Had that candidate not been on the ballot, I would have abstained from that particular position.
It's like the BSA argument that people who steal software (yes it's stealing) would have normally bought the software. No, they wouldn't have.
Really? If there were three candidates, one who was 95% in agreement with you, one who was 85%, and one who was 30%, and the 95% dropped out of the race, you would just NOT vote for the 85%?
But I refuse to vote for a candidate because of a single plank or even 2 or 3 planks. I won't compromise on things like marriage equality or abortion rights. Those, while they should have no federal interferance at all, sadly are determined at the federal level. Same goes for economy.
But if the candidate has an opinion on, say, the Department of Education that I'm opposed to I might let it slide.
The point I was making is that is a case by case basis and more times than not, I've refused to vote for any candidate because I didn't want to send a message that I supported them at all.
If everyone informed chooses not to vote for anyone, all that does is give more power to the uninformed.
In the US each elected official, whether they were a Democrat nominee, a Republican nominee, or a member of one of the other parties chooses who they will caucus with. That's why people like Arlen Specter can change parties freely.
And allocating seats based on the percentage of people who voted in each state ignores those who don't have the right to vote - whether they're children, foreigners, or people in other categories. Once someone is elected, they're supposed to serve their entire constituency, not just those who voted for them.
And finally, the US (and no country that I can think of, really) is not a democracy, it is a democratic republic. The many elect a few to govern, and those elected to govern are supposed to do what is right - and what is right is not always what the majority wants.
American voting is under-informed and has low turn out, but at least the few percentage of electorate that vote actually care.
Aussies .. I am not sure if they don't care, or if they're just good at hiding their political views. It's far easier to speak to an American and learn about his/her political stances. Aussies are much more opaque, in my experience, and seem to be equally resentful of all politicians.
For all their bureaucracy, Aussies are far more anarchic and egalitarian than any other nation that I am familiar with, except maybe Somalis.
Australians, at least the ones in NSW that I have come to know, consider the government and politicians "a bunch of wankers". They're very pessimistic about the people they elect; which is both nice, and also harmful.
Having said that .. Aussie Aussie Aussie!
[Edit:
People should harden the fuck up and visit Australia; everyone should live there at least once. Just thinking about that place brings a smile to my face. They're a nation of good-natured jokers, thoroughly beautiful I tell ya. But be prepared to be bull-shat left and right; you will have a hard time if you're a self-righteous prick]
Politicians are a bunch of wankers. They wouldn't be politicians if they weren't. I don't mean that in a really bad way, I just mean, being a successful politician takes a certain personality type. If you aren't rough as guts, a bit of a prick and full of yourself, you won't survive in Australian politics.
As for compulsory voting, I dig it. You should too.
The ALP (Australian Labor Party) are out "Democrats" (in the US sense; we had a Democrats party here that was something else and basically imploded 5+ years ago anyway). It has its roots in the union movement. The majority of ALP MPs (Members of Parliament, the House of Representatives, often called the Lower House) earned their stripes in the union movement, even now.
ALP support bears some correlation with being "working class" and lower socioeconomic position. Traditional supporters are deeply suspicious of anything that (allegedly) erodes "worker's rights" and of any conservative government.
On the right we have the Coalition, which is two parties: the Australian Liberal Party (don't mistake this with the US meaning of "liberal", they're conservative) and the National Party, which is much like the Liberals but only field candidates in rural seats and have a very rural focus.
Calling this a blue and white collar divide is largely accurate.
The Greens are very much on the left and, like the environmental movements in all developed nations, is largely supported by a young, discontent middle and upper classes. I say this not as a judgement but rather environmentalism is a luxury, meaning you see it in rich not poor countries.
The Greens are basically the "ALP in waiting" and deeply entrenched in university politics (meaning the kind of people who run in or care about student elections).
In India, its assumed almost sinful to ask for political stance/ "Who are you gonna vote for" in the urban society. (It may be illegal too, not sure)
Granted, I'm not American, but I think I've been here long enough to qualify for all intents and purposes.
You're also correct about generally being able to tell someone's political leaning.
Another thing is that the 2 parties (republican and democrat) are very clearly opposed and distinct. And every republican I know very strongly identifies with being a republican (and my guess is that they vote republican unquestioningly straight across the ballot). Surmise from that what you will.
I think politics among the US electorate is exactly analogous to bikeshed discussions on a mailing list.
I think everyone should go to Australia at some point, visit the beautiful country. I also think everyone should go to Canada. Amazing places at opposite ends of the world.
The recent election was a very close race between the two major parties, and also had one of the highest % of informal votes in recent history, which is some measure of the unhappiness of voters with the choices they were given.
Voluntary voting in the US has one strange effect: politicians no 1 goal is to get "their" group to vote. Each side has a relatively fixed (and roughly equal) group of voters. Most of them stay home. The side that gets their group voting, even at the expense of a few defections, wins. That creates weird politics.
However, that is not the case everywhere. In lots of places the paradigm is a fixed group (possibly a minority) of voters who shift alliances more easily. A multiparty system encourages this.
I suspect that most defectors are actual abstainers, not defectors.
So how come nobody has told those internet censor wankers that a joke's a joke, they've had their fun, and now it's time to get back in their box before they feel the back of your hand?
The trouble is, there isn't enough of us who care.
It's really convenient and people are using this more and more. For example last elections 15.75% of votes were made using internet. Official statistics can be found from http://vvk.ee/voting-methods-in-estonia/engindex
Also there are talks that they want to enable voting with mobile phones (there are already solutions where you can log in to banks and other websites with mobile phones).
By any chance, is your most recently elected president called "moot"? Is there or has there ever been a legal motion to rename the country to "4chanistan"?
I think I might know what caused your recent problems, and it's not Russia or the EU.
Anonymous for President. Name change to /B/stonia
I jest, I jest :) Still, I've heard of some cool governmental tech over there. Voting, as grandparent said, along with cell-phone payment of gasoline, painless e-banking with 2 factor auth, and other cool stuff.
I also remember a pyramid that was built in that area that was on History International... I _think_ it was there, as it talked more about the architecture than the location, other than temps going from 80F to -30F.
You have to prove you are Estonian citizen (or become one) and the system is secure enough that people can trust their money and sign legal documents with this system.
Actually this is one weak point in the system. If some crook gets hold of your ID-card and your PIN codes, he can sign documents that are legally binding. (For example sell your house for a dollar etc.)
Sorry. I don't understand this comment.
Is it trying to say, that electronic voting is by definition a failure? It doesn't seem to criticize any specific aspect of the Estonian e-voting system.
Or is it just calling names?
Neither sabbath nor market day, yet still a weekend day. Or did people back then consider Saturday a regular work/week day too?
"Convinced that the people are the only safe depositories of their own liberty, and that they are not safe unless enlightened to a certain degree, I have looked on our present state of liberty as a short-lived possession unless the mass of the people could be informed to a certain degree." --Thomas Jefferson
Case in point, at least two HN readers (OP and myself) didn't know homeless people could vote by mail at the US Post Office, but I know at least one of them is very well-informed on the issues.
When you vote by mail in the comfort of your home, how do you guarantee that no such tampering happened?
I voted about three weeks ago.
EDIT: Spelling
By law in Canada, employers are required to make sure that every employee has three and half hours during which they can go vote.
In the US, there are a number of problems with the voting procedure, too many to count really, I think facing and addressing those issues would be far better than making voting compulsory.
When voting is voluntary, certain groups are incentivized to encourage or discourage other groups from voting. This manifests itself as bribery, legitimate "get out the vote" efforts, making the process of voting difficult and so on.
Basically you've created an incentive for such practices by making voting voluntary. All of that goes away when voting is compulsory.
I'm reminded of the Spce Shuttle Challenger disaster in 2003. I saw a TV show about the investigation into that. After launch there was concern about the visible debris coming off the shuttle. The investigation afterwards showed that there was significant resistance within NASA to investigating that prior to re-entry. Certain people wanted to use satellite imagery to see if there was any damage to the shuttle. Other groups resisted.
The reason this was contentious was that such practices weren't required. The solution? The investigation resulted in NASA instituting a policy requiring such imagery be taken of all shuttle flights.
Once something is mandatory, all sorts of incentives (and the problems they create) simply go away.
It may seem weird, but there are families so destitute that they may have better things to do than vote.
The voter turnout will be just fine without compulsory voting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout#International_dif....
Looking at the comments again, tjogin summed it up pretty well.
If you're being practical and are just trying to get a certain politician elected or ballot measure passed, then requesting that people vote within a demographic that is likely to vote in a predictable way (Democratic on HN, I'm sure) is duplicitous. You pretend you don't care what party people vote for, but anyone can tell that a "Rock the Vote" campaign on MTV is intended to get youth Democrat votes, or that bussing in impoverished people is intended to get Democrat votes. Never is the idea why people should vote actually explained, but that doesn't stop them from shaming those who don't. Republicans tend to be a little more frank as to who you should vote for and why.
Which is why I say, vote Meg Whitman, because the State of California is broke and she is more likely to contain the spending. Vote to legalize marijuana because it's high time people stopped being sent to jail for smoking pot. And if you're thinking of voting otherwise, I encourage you to stay home. Because a vote is not a moral obligation. It's a serious political act that changes the structure of society, and I would rather my preferred changes happen than that they be as democratic as possible.
I very much disagree with this statement, which smacks of hyperbole. A citizen has certain responsibilities. It is not tyranny to expect that citizen to perform their responsibility. One of the responsibilities is jury duty and, I would argue, voting is another.
What is your argument?
I think one of the positive effects of it is that it forces everyone to think about it. I know people who I can guarantee would not vote were it not compulsory, but since it is they have looked into both parties and have formed some opinions which they then use to guide their votes. I think that anything that increases the overall political knowledge of the population is a good thing.
Another positive effect is that politicians don't need to spend any time getting people to the polls - this is something I see American politicians and citizens waste an absurd amount of time on.
Anyway, the fines in Australia are pretty small - I missed a state election once (moved and forgot to update the electoral roll) and it was around $20.
But otherwise, please DO NOT VOTE. Just because an idea makes you feel warm and fuzzy doesn't make it right. There are plenty of things in this world that are counter-intuitive, and if you're relying only on your beliefs, there's a good chance you'll get it wrong.
If you've never taken a class or read a book on economics, please don't vote. (I recommend Economics in One Lesson, by Henry Hazlett [1])
If you've never taken a class or read a book on political philosophy, please don't vote. If you don't know the difference between natural law and utilitarianism, please don't vote. (I recommend reading J S Mill [2], or Locke [3], or Mises [4], or Hayek [5])
And if you don't believe me, then you should also read The Myth of the Rational Voter, by Bryan Caplan [6]. He discusses not only why voters do vote irrationally, but also why it's rational for them to do so.
[1] https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Economics_in_...
[2] https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/John_Stuart_M...
[3] https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/John_locke
[4] https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Ludwig_von_Mi...
[5] https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Friedrich_Hay...
[6] https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/The_Myth_of_t...
Additionally, "if you understand the issues" is a vague, relative parameter. I know in the state of wisconsin I don't know 100% of the issues (and probably not even 50%, sadly. Been a busy year), but I know enough of what I like and dislike about the Governor and Senate battles to vote with confidence.
I think your argument is a mute point. It's either damned if we do, damned if we don't.
That means his only chance of victory is a high turnout...so I hope that parent (kgosser) can take some time to vote today. Feingold is truly one of the most important Senators of the last few decades.
IMHO, this is precisely what the 1st Amendment was designed to give us, and Feingold's disavowal of it overrides virtually anything else he may or may not have done.
"Apparently Sen. Feingold believes that it's better to have an ill-informed electorate, and that we shouldn't be able to use our 1st Amendment rights to put a voice to our ideas, "
Let me get you on the record here -- you actually think the various "Americans for American Americans" groups are contributing to the debate? You think these groups deserve a voice? Let me re-enact a little play for you in 3 lines:
Lobbyist: I've got 5 million to spend, Senator. I can spend it with you or against you. We need our subsidies.
Senator: I'm going to do the right thing, not the corrupt thing.
Americans for American Americans: "Senator X supports wasteful government spending and death panels"
(Note that the lobbyist who was asking for money is now running ads accusing the senator of spending too much. That's ok, because it works.)
It's a straw man because not only does McCain-Feingold forbid behavior like you illustrate, but also perfectly reasonable advocacy. So the NRA can't say "don't vote for Mr. X because he's against the 2nd Amendment". Pro-choice people can't say "don't vote for Mr. Z because he's voted for blah blah". These are precisely the types of speech that the 1st Amendment was intended (in part) to protect, and McCain-Feingold eviscerates it.
It's a red herring, because it's attacking something that's not wrong anyway (and fails to attack what I believe you thing is wrong).
It fails to address the implied corruption, bribery, and lobbying. McCain-Feingold has nothing to do with that stuff, yet it's the central evil in your little play.
And the last line of your play: Americans for American Americans: "Senator X supports wasteful government spending and death panels" is not wrong. Every person has the right to put up a sign on his front door, or put up a web site, describing his own political views, and advocating for or against specific candidates. Every one of us also has the right to associate with who we wish, and in so doing, pool our funds to make that web site even spiffier, or buy a TV ad. I believe that your objection to this is completely content-based: you dislike the kinds of messages that are being commnunicated; you think they're dangerous, and want to stop them.
But even if I'm wrong, your argument otherwise serves to bolster my original point ("don't vote unless you know the issues"). We all have the responsibility to understand what's going on. We're supposed to be adults with a conscience and the ability to weigh and judge the merits. If you don't do so, you've got no business voting.
Campaign finance laws make it so that candidates supported by passionate minorities cannot be heard. If you are not 1) personally rich or 2) a mainstream candidate in a mainstream party you have no opportunity to speak. This is ironic considering such laws are usually passed as a way to fight "entrenched interests", but they do exactly the opposite.
>"Sorry that you've been brainwashhed."
That tone is a little overboard for this website community.
The inability to throw millions of soft money into the race made it harder to fight the established political interest? Or made it harder to harness established lobbyist interest?
Under McCain-Feingold, candidates can self-fund for any amount, and donations are limited to $2300/head, that's $4600 for married couples. If you can't find 1000 people to support you, you shouldn't be in politics. If you can't find 1000 people to support you but have one guy cutting 10 million dollar checks, you DEFINITELY shouldn't be in politics.
It is self-evident that if you limit the amount of money that people can spend on advertising their political views that niche candidates and less popular ideas will be hurt the most. Unions can compel donations from their millions of members, your Clintons, Obamas, and McCains of the world get the full support and advertising of the major parties. But offbeat candidates will have their speech capped by McCain-Feingold, unless they are personally rich (Ross Perot).
We had many outside projects (independent advertisements and the like) that couldn't get cash because so many of us had donated our max amount to the campaign (even though few of us were personally rich). There's something weird about being an American and not being allowed to support a candidate because it is against the law. I would much rather have a rough and tumble, wide-open contest in the finest democratic tradition than Democrats and Republicans writing laws about who is allowed to speak.
You seem to want to outlaw outside advertisements because they don't meet your standards for quality. Cool man, cool. I just want you to consider how that position fits within the American liberal tradition.
>" If you can't find 1000 people to support you, you shouldn't be in politics. "
That sounds like an incumbent protection act to me.
We had a few hundred thousand supporters, ended up getting a few million votes! Even found a loophole in McCain-Feingold and set up one venture as a for-profit enterprise (you ever see the "Hillary 2008" t-shirts at airports? Same loophole).
We did okay, considering. But man, I just want my freedom back.
I want to re-regulate outside advertisements because they are almost always the product of shady dealings. Citizens United happened this year and we're setting records for the amount of money spent, during a frickin midterm. And guys like you complain about corruption in DC. No sense of irony?
Feingold on the other hand is standing by his vote for Obamacare. I haven't forgotten the disdainful smirk on his face when he addressed his enraged constituents at last years' health care town hall meetings, and I don't think my fellow Wisconsinites have either.
This election is all about consequences for those who ignored the will of the people, and Russ Feingold is chief among them.
It's way worse for the deficit, and was a way bigger spending bill.
Oh, wait, that was a Republican.. I get it..
This is how Rome fell - if beating your domestic enemies is more important to you than improving the country, you are hurting the country.
Libertarians were loudly protesting. To no effect of course, because Republicans were behind their guy and Democrats were primarily complaining that it wasn't expensive enough.
if beating your domestic enemies is more important to you than improving the country, you are hurting the country.
I agree completely. Please mention that to the President if you run into him: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE69929420101101
RE: Obama, you must be kidding. The man is a born compromiser, the problem is that Republicans haven't been willing to compromise on anything. They voted against their own deficit commission, for crying out loud, after Obama decided to support it.
EDIT: Punctuation
Filibustering senators are declaring that they are unwilling to allow the issue to be voted on, not that they think their voice hasn't been heard enough.
By filibustering so often, the Republicans are showing that this is no longer the custom. Which is fine; I think it's a silly custom, and we'd benefit as a nation if blocking legislation like that were impossible. But it is absolutely a break from common procedure.
(as much as it pains me to defend the GOP)
Seems much like a Catch-22 game.
Therefore, please just vote. From your life experiences, what you believe in, what sounds good to you, or by whatever text is of your liking.
I'm not saying that you've got to have the same values as me. I'm saying that whatever your values are, you should (a) be able to support an argument about them; and (b) you should understand how the candidates relate to those issues.
I'm not saying whether Hayek or Keynes is right about the economy. I'm saying that if you don't know the difference between the two, you've got no business voting an opinion about how the economy should be handled.
I don't like voting based on party, and I think the two-party system we have is inadequate, but the parties are there for a reason. I know that I'm voting for a platform if I vote for a Democrat or Republican or Libertarian, and that the candidate is going to represent that platform at least to some extent. In most cases, candidates' platforms are drawn directly from the party platforms, and you're not likely to find out much more about them until they've been in office for a while. Even then, what is knowable about a candidate is mostly in aggregate.
As to actual issues, these can be much less straightforward, but often it comes down to something as simple as, "do I want gambling at the mall?" (a current issue in my district). There are a lot of implications behind this - money coming in from out of state to protect other gambling interests, developers who want to build, etc. - but I still think it's valid for someone to vote for or against it for their own personal reasons. It is an expression of culture not just reason.
That's true to a certain extent. But it's only one side of the equation. Even if you can take party as a proxy for the candidate, it tells you nothing about the issues.
So, let's say that your biggest concern at the moment is the economy. Without knowing something about economics, how do you decide which party to support? If you can't tell the difference between Keynes and Hayek, everything else is just demagoguery. You're just judging the propaganda.
What if you're concern is healthcare? I know plenty of people who say "vote out the damn Democrats, and put in somebody who's smart enough to enact tort reform to fix the problem". These ill-informed views might make them feel superior, but giving people power to create policy based on them isn't going to help anything.
It's wrong because voting is an inherent citizenship right; it cannot be made contiguous on intellectual (or any other, e.g. socio-economic class) aspects, e.g. knowledge of economics, full understanding of the issues etc. of a voter. If you open the door to voter discrimination by declaring some votes less equal than others, who knows what other ideologies may walk through it.
It is also dangerous because it creates a sense of "right". The one thing that always amazed me in my discussions with liberals in the US is that they argue that their position is, how to put it, "inherently right", i.e. that they are the informed ones, whereas the "others" are the hoi polloi, the uneducated, stupid masses. Years earlier, in the race between Kerry and Bush, when I pointed to these people that Kerry came across as unlovable and stiff, I was met with disbelief: It was Kerry's "right" to be elected because he was "right". The danger of this view, of course, is that it often leads to defeat. In any confrontation, knowing the enemy's full power is crucial and belittling them will not make you win the war.
Nope, 100% serious.
It's wrong because voting is an inherent citizenship right; it cannot be made...
I agree completely. In no way do I advocate any sort of qualification. That's a slippery slope the first step of which is incredibly steep.
What I'm advocating is that people self-select. I wish we could each reflect personally, and try to determine whether we really have the knowledge and understanding that's necessary to judge; and then honestly decide whether that the conclusion allows us to impose our thoughts on others.
The government enforces its policies, ultimately, by force and violence. If you're going to threaten someone (by way of the government) with force, you'd better be damned confident that there's a good reason to do so.
HN readers, please vote today.
I find the totality of your comments in this thread incredibly offensive. To suggest that citizens abdicate their right to vote is incredulous. I am of the opinion that every citizen should be encouraged to vote by any and all legal means. If for no other reason then to educate people as to the mechanics of democracy let alone exercise a right that generations of people have died to ensure.
I'd have an easier time understanding where I've gone astray if you could address my two questions:
1. Is it immoral to vote by dice?
2. In what ways does an ignorant voter, reacting emotionally to propaganda, differ from voting by dice?
2. Imho, the act of voting in and of itself encompass a conscious decision to act. To act requires thought. Who are we to judge the beliefs or thought process that leads a citizen to vote?
Even if the voter was "reacting emotionally to propaganda", so what? I find it interesting that you use three very loaded words within a span of four.
Reacting. You paint this voter as reptilian. Incapable of thought and merely reacting to various primal instincts.
Emotionally. You impugn this voters ability to remain uncompromised and imply a certain level of deficit.
Propaganda. You concern yourself with the message the citizen receives and pass judgment as to whether or not it meets your standards of information.
[edit] Allow me to elaborate on your first question. You either have the right to vote or you do not. If I chose to vote based on which side of the bed I woke up on then so be it. To say otherwise is to assert your opinion over my right.
You, Sir, are emotionally compromised on this issue.
Let me state it simply: Voting is a right given to a citizen who meets certain definitions (i.e. inmates cannot vote). It's not up to you, or me, or the government to dictate or judge what they will do with their vote. They can roll a dice, use Tarot cards, be influenced by O'Reilly, whatever. It's their right to use however they see fit.
Ideas like yours do great damage because they provide fuel to idiotic movements like the Tea Party.
> Voting is a right given to a citizen who meets
> certain definitions (i.e. inmates cannot vote).
I got curious, so rather than going lunch, did some Wikipedia reading here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_rights_in_the_United_Sta.... Turns out the right to vote cannot be denied based on :
* Religion (in Constitution is found in Article VI, section 3. * "Race, color, or previous condition of servitude" (15th Amendment, 1870) * "On account of sex" (19th Amendment, 1920) * "By reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax" (24th Amendment, 1964)
Conversely, this means that the right can be denied based on other factors, just not one of the above.
It also says: "As of July 2007, fourteen states, eleven of them in the South, ban anyone with a felony conviction from voting for life." This is outrageous, and should be considered a cruel and unusual punishment! When someone servers their term, they should be given their citizenship rights back.
I agree that this is heinous. Through this means, the political process can hijack the judicial system to eliminate dissent. This means, for example that anyone who had been convicted of sodomy (back when that was still a crime, and if it had been a felony) would be barred from participating in the democratic process, e.g., for pursuing gay marriage.
When someone servers their term, they should be given their citizenship rights back.
But: are you willing to also return to them their 2nd Amendment right to keep & bear arms? (for the record, I am)
Would you want an uninformed, unintelligent leader? If not, would you want uninformed, unintelligent people to choose a leader?
Of course, I do agree that there are issues with the proposal - self-selection would be a bad choice thanks to Dunning-Kruger [2] - and I do agree that any kind of 'you must have an IQ this high to vote' would be a bad idea, due to those entrenched in power setting the requirements.
Personally, I would prefer a solution based on better political and economic education, but that's such a difficult problem.
[1] http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Problem is, rarely I find myself in a setting where these interesting topics can be discussed in a rational setting. But that's the subject of another post.
My rational argument against CWuestefeld's suggestions is simple (based on entropy minimization): Do not make any complex issue even more complicated by your actions.
Let me explain: In its essence CWuestefeld suggestion rests on the notion that some voters' votes are off less value. If we accept this, then the question becomes, how do we determine the value: who should be allowed to vote. He says that it should be contingent on "knowledge of economics, full understanding of the issues etc.". I might counter with a different definition, e.g. "Most politics is dominated by men, so men should know better" or the somewhat better "without knowing the reality of a factory worker, how can you vote on issues that affect us". This leads to murky, philosophical debate that makes the issue even more complex and intractable than the one it's trying to solve.
how do we determine the value: who should be allowed to vote
To be clear, I believe that everyone should be allowed to vote. I'd go so far as to say that even felons should be allowed to, for fear that the legal system could otherwise be used as a tool to stifle electoral dissent.
My suggestion that some people not cast a vote is intended to be entirely personal, as a matter of conscience and reflection. If anyone honestly believes that his ideas are the product of rational thought applied to an understanding of the situation, then by all means, cast that vote.
I don't think that your murky water criticism can apply, because I'm not asking -- nor trusting -- anyone else to judge. I'm asking for a person's own, honest, self-evaluation. No one else need know if you exercised this option or not, and it's none of their business.
Moreover, this doesn't relate to a single person monolithically. A person might have very well informed ideas about one topic, yet be ignorant about another. The decision ought to be made on a vote-by-vote basis. For example, this morning I did not cast a vote for County Freeholder. Although I know who the incumbent is, and don't have anything in particular against him, I don't know enough about county-level politics, nor the candidates, to make an informed decision, so I abstained. Yet I did cast a vote for US Representative, County Sheriff, etc.
I'm also sympathetic to the criticism that Dunning-Kruger might make this backfire.
Why would you so blatantly misrepresent what someone said? All CWuestefeld said is that if you don't know that much about politics, don't vote. Or does that somehow equate to denying someone the right to vote in your mind?
P.S. The fact that it is reaching the limited audience of HN only strengthens my case, since HN readership tends to be more informed.
P.P.S. You also missed the possibility that elite voters have a different set of priorities than uninformed voters and would therefore misrepresent the majority of the populace.
If you're an elitist academic that thinks knowledge about how the world works can only be garnered via institutionalized knowledge, please don't vote.
If you're willing to recommend that lower classes, made up predominantly of marginalized races, opt out of a say in their future, please don't vote.
If a voter is reacting emotionally to propaganda, without taking the time to understand the real story, is this much different from rolling dice?
To understand the "real story", I'd trust someone who had paid attention to what the parties have done over decades, reading news and analysis, over someone who merely read a book on political philosophy at some point.
However, to prefer that point of view is to exclude other possibilities outside of the status quo.
For example, the Republicans were pretty new back in the mid-1800's, with Abraham Lincoln being the first Republican elected president. If my vote were based on past performance of the parties, I'd only have considered Democrats and Whigs.
And if you're following along, you'll notice that the President credited with freeing the slaves was a Republican. How did that happen? Over time, the positions of the American parties have changed quite drastically. In the early 1900s, it was the Democrats who were backing big business. but the civil rights movement shuffled things significantly. Similarly, the (American) definition of "liberal" has changed significantly since the late 1800s. Back then, a liberal's ideas would correspond more closely to today's Libertarians or perhaps a small-government Republican.
My point here is that history can only have limited utility. First, by definition, it excludes new ideas. Second, the parts of the players shift so that long-term comparisons become problematic.
A large group of people voting by dice do not effect the out of the election. A group of people reacting to emotional propaganda may very well vote all the same way and effect the election for irrational reasons.
The group of people who decide to self select themselves out of the voting process by ignorance are allowing the group swayed by propaganda to have a larger control of the vote.
Therefore do to the above mentioned effect and the Dunning-Kruger effect it is only rational not to vote if have evidence that your vote will do more damage then a random vote.
"...if you're relying only on your beliefs..."
Of course, I would argue the exact opposite. Between any number of subjective opinions, is it not ones beliefs that enable you to make a decision?
"If you've never taken a class or read a book on economics, please don't vote."
Perhaps you should not vote because i believe that you, Sir, are out of your mind.
If you really believe that people shouldn't have a say in elections based on your criteria, you should at least ask them to actively do so by casting a blank vote. Otherwise your motives might be misinterpreted as trying to demoralize people who don't share your views from voting.
And as someone once said: "It ain’t so much the things we don’t know that get us into trouble. It’s the things we know that just ain’t so"
Not necessarily true just because someone said so, but I do agree with the point being made.
Huh? I mentioned JS Mill and Locke, Mises and Hayek. The first two were classical liberals. That's a very different thing than what we label "Liberal" (with a capital "L") today. You'll find individual freedom at the core of their work (e.g., Mill's advocacy for women's suffrage).
Mises and Hayek would, I imagine, also consider themselves as classical liberals, but by their time the definition (in America) of "liberal" was changing (which is why I drew the capital-L distinction above). Both of them wrote extensively about the primacy of the individual.
You reference positive freedom, but the idea itself wasn't coined until the mid-1900s, long after Mill and Locke were dead, and with much of Hayek's career behind him. But I feel safe in saying that none of them would find much of value in the concept of positive freedom.
But my advocacy that you understand something is not the same thing as saying that you must agree with something. Indeed, in order to disagree with an idea, you must first understand what that idea is -- know your enemy, right?
As I've said elsewhere in this thread, the government backs up its policies with force and violence, ultimately. Thus, advocating a policy is, in the end, a threat of violence against those who disagree. If you're going to do that, you better be damned sure that your ideas are correct.
If you made the argument that no one should vote because no one can fully understand all different viewpoints and you yourself won't be voting, then I would at least understand the argument. But I don't think that is what you are saying.
There is no principled way to distinguish between a vote based on propaganda from a vote based on knowledge that doesn't actively disenfranchise voters. So why even try? Just vote your say, and rather than expending your energy trying to keep people out of the ballot box, expend it on educating them.
Advocating that people take themselves out of the pool because they may not understand the entire situation would eliminate every possible voter.
It'd eliminate all of the candidates, too...
Informed voting > not voting > uninformed voting
Greg Mankiw has a column on this: http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2006/11/election-day-approach...
It might be the case that we should encourage everyone to vote, so that all of the uninformed votes might cancel each other out.
I wouldn't be surprised if the same were true of other skills useful to high-quality voting, such as military strategy, education, criminology and history.
I'm also a little leery of anything coming out of the Cato Institute. If this was a published study, that would be different. Given that the author is a professor, I'm willing to give him a little slack, but I'd rather see the opinion peer-reviewed. I don't follow economics well enough to know of any contrarian points of view.
The author's main point seems to be that just because some people can vote, doesn't mean that they should vote. What he doesn't address is why the noise from the uninformed doesn't cancel out. Or more accurately, why wouldn't more noise be better noise? He states that the errors compound, but he never really give a good reason why (at least in my skimming).
I still maintain that the current distribution of uninformed voters isn't uniform. There was a study a while ago (but I can't remember the citation) that said that an increate in even uninformed opinions strengthened predictive power. So in this case more idiots were better idiots. I wish I remember what field this was in though...
The link is to Cato Unbound, where they host an essay and discussion by outsiders to the Cato Institute. The participants aren't just libertarians; Matthew Yglesias had an essay not too long ago.
> I'd rather see the opinion peer-reviewed.
It isn't formal peer review, but there are reaction essays here: http://www.cato-unbound.org/archives/november-2006/
> The author's main point seems to be that just because some people can vote, doesn't mean that they should vote. What he doesn't address is why the noise from the uninformed doesn't cancel out...(at least in my skimming).
Caplan addresses it in the last three paragraphs under How Misconceptions Are Possible, but he's pressed for space in that essay. He wrote about book about this. You can also find his argument here (PDF link): http://mercatus.org/sites/default/files/publication/Straight...
Also, the only acceptable way to show that you don't want to vote is to go and cast a blank or invalid vote.
The "curse" of rational ignorance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_ignorance
The idea that "the uninformed" should not vote is contrary to universal suffrage and has a long history of use for disenfranchisement. "Uninformed voting" is in the eye of the beholder (working definition: uninformed voters are those who both disagree with me and are outside my social group).
One person's criteria for being informed may be awareness of specific proposals for complex policies, while another's might be the candidate's up or down stance on a single issue, and for another it might be party affiliation (noted on the ballot in most US jurisdictions).
Conversely, a person can be highly informed and vote in a way which damages the community at large, e.g. a person may vote to reduce educational funding thereby lowering their taxes with the intent of using the savings to fund the production of child pornography.
Today, vote as well as you are able.
But, if someone has enough self-knowledge to recognize that they are relatively uninformed, on a single issue or the ballot as a whole, they should abstain from voting on those portions of the ballot. By doing so, they delegate the decision to more-informed people.
The option to vote if they are later agitated or informed remains important -- but it doesn't have to exercised every time to serve its purpose of defending their interests.
People moved to vote at the last minute by a speech about their 'obligation', and deciding based on a few fleeting impressions from the last wave of rhetoric, make the process more random and superficial. They are the people most affected by negative ads, or simpleminded sloganeering.
The problem as I see it, is that believing oneself to be "relatively uninformed" does not make a person relatively uninformed (it may in fact lead them to actively acquire more information - i.e why Severs believes he is below average). Conversely, believing oneself to be well informed does not make one well informed, and may alas lead a person to stop seeking relevant information.
Indeed it would not surprise me if the people most affected by "simpleminded sloganeering" tend to believe they are well informed.
The problem with "people should" in a political context is that it can quickly become "people must" backed with the force of government, and any implementation of: "Informed voting > not voting > uninformed voting" requires disenfranchisement.
Here in the UK, the British National Party (a far-right fringe party) got two seats in the last European Parliament elections simply because turnout had fallen so low for the main parties. A lot of people are rightly ashamed at not bothering to vote. The only people who benefit from apathy are extremists and demagogues who can reliably rally support. A moderate political environment depends upon people motivating themselves to vote for boring candidates.
That said, those who don't must understand the implications of their actions (like the example you give).
If you can join forces with like-minded citizens in support an idea that you believe in, as part of a movement that could change national policies for the better, then please do so. If you believe doing so has a reasonable chance of making the world a better place, then maybe you even have a moral obligation to do so. But just voting out of some misplaced sense of civic duty is stupid.
The truth is that many people are politically active independently of wether they vote or not.
While others believe in voting, I believe in entrepreneurship for the sake of eroding politics.
I have deep philosophical problems with governments and politics in general. That's not likely to change.
However, I am not a cynical person. I believe I could change and undermine the influences of governments and introduce voluntary and non-coercive form of organizations.
It doesn't seem to make sense to say that voting for a 3rd party is a waste of time if half of the population who agree with you...
What I'm hearing is that you do not vote because you resent some perceived obligation do so. Seriously?
The opportunity to cast one's vote is a distinct privilege.
That looks like the definition of a political party to me. Saying that creating more parties is a solution to the current 2-party situation (which, I agree, is bad) doesn't seem right to me. I don't really have a solution, though.
Voting for someone outside of those 2 parties is only a waste of time because so many people are doing such a good job of convincing everyone that it is. If the >50% of the population that never votes all went out and voted third party, even if they were different third parties, then maybe some of them would qualify for government $, and then maybe one of them could get even more supporters in the next election with that money.
By not voting you're taking away your .000001% influence on the outcome. By not voting and telling everyone it doesn't make sense to vote, you're taking away the influence of everyone you convince not to vote, and making it that much harder for anyone trying to create the kind of movements you suggest.
Really?
I'm not sure how the UK system works, but in the US it's based on the state. (this is only re: presidential election) I live in NY, and democrats always taken NY state in presidential election just because they're democrats. Same with California. And in Texas, Republican candidate always wins because he's a Republican. There may be some exceptions to the rule, but very few.
So my vote didn't really count in the last election, because no matter how I voted, Obama would still win NY.
This is a product of a broken two party system that doesn't allow any non-asshole candidate to get elected. It's always a choice between a giant douche and turd sandwich.
Having said that, I still voted - for the third party, even though they had no chance. Maybe if one day a third party candidate gets enough voted something will change.
I think I'm gonna go vote for Jimmy McMillan now: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent_Is_Too_Damn_High_Party
Further: there are more races on the ballot than the headline-grabbers; those smaller races have a lot more impact on your day-to-day life and you have a lot more impact over the outcome.
Also, as a rather different brand of political fringe sort from members of the BNP, I admire your bold frankness in exhorting people to vote so that any ideas outside of the most mainstream are safely kept out of public debate.
The choice not to vote is also an expression of one's idea: that he does not believe in any of the politicians, or in the system as a whole. Lack of votes is also a measure on how much people believe in politicians. Italy has never been so corrupted in the past (transversally, in every party) as it is now, and this is reflected in the fact that the percentage of people who did not vote at the last elections was the highest one.
I would rather people care enough to vote, no matter who they vote for - even if it means more crazy people in politics.
(If you don't believe in the system at all, do not make use of it at all -- and we don't see many people actually doing that.)
Are you sure? Did you forget the fall of all the "traditional" political parties 15 years ago or so, and the first rise of Berlusconi?
Looking at the Transparency International chart you can find Italy at the 67th place, under highly corrupted african countries:
http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/...
Looking at the historical data you can see Italy going down the chart, from position 29 in 2001 to 67 today:
http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/...
A village was planning a feast. All of the residents were asked to bring a bottle of wine, each of which would be mixed together in a large vat for everyone to partake of. One of the residents reasoned that a single bottle wouldn't make a difference, and so brought a bottle of water instead. When it came time to distribute from the vat of wine at the feast, it turned out the vat was entirely full of water, as all of the residents had come to the same conclusion.
For nearly every practical purpose in our United States general elections, a single vote does indeed not make a difference. But a thousand votes might make a difference, and if those thousand people were all persuaded that their single vote wouldn't make a difference, and then didn't vote, then the difference would not be made.
Why would those 1000 votes all be for B? They could be for A. They could be evenly split between them. Most likely, they'd be proportionally split similarly to the original vote.
You're looking at partisans' rhetoric used to motivate their supporters and mistaking it for logic.
Knowing nothing else, there's really no way to say for sure what would happen, but if they don't vote, then they certainly will not change the outcome.
Which is what you can see in the comments of this thread: hope that if more people voted, things would shift more left-wing, more right-wing, more centrist, etc.
Pure wishful thinking, nothing more.
(And the opposite side of the coin is shown by people bridling at suggestions that fewer people should vote and identifying such arguments as covert attempts to undermine their preferred political team...)
On those grounds, I do not see voting as a pointless, worthless activity; your vote added to the votes of others might be the deciding factor in who gets elected.
The bigger picture is, does it matter who gets elected? As you bring out in another thread, most of the major candidates "opposing" each other are actually very similar in what they stand for. Voting one in or the other probably won't make a huge difference. I guess if you want to claim that no matter if we vote or not, the government isn't going to be much different, that's probably fair.
To make more of an impact than voting, citizens may need to get involved as candidates and really try to change things, but in order for that to work, people would need to vote for them, which means, people would need to vote, rather than not vote.
So I guess, to be clear, I claim that your vote, along with the votes of others, can effect the outcome of the election. The outcome of the election may or may not effect the outcome of the government, but that's another matter entirely.
I for one am open to hearing suggestions on what we can do to improve the government beyond voting, or running for office (success at which requires people to vote).
Really? Its my obligation to help the rest of the people pretend we live in a democracy?
Our system is built on the assumption that most people don't have the time or capacity to understand all the issues, so we elect people to do the understanding for us.
The solution isn't to get more people voting. It's to run better candidates.
Honest.
(Not really.)
This is why I don't vote. I am firmly convinced that America is not a democracy, it is a plutocracy that masquerades as a democracy. The interests of the hyper-rich and powerful are served at the expense of the general public. Politicians are simply the people who craft the message (either conservative or liberal) to get enough votes to be put in a position where they can assure that their campaign contributors are served. For me, the recent supreme court decision to allow unlimited corporate expenditures on campaigns was the death of any semblance of democracy in the United States.
If you vote you take some responsibility for the next war, the next bombing, the next threat to Iran, etc. I want no part in putting more blood on my hands.
I realize most of you think it matters but think about this: when does your one vote ever matter? Has your vote ever decided anything? Have you ever been proud of all the actions of who you voted for?
Instead of voting you are better off creating value in society by doing what many of you do already: create something that improves someone's life.
No it won't, they'll just say people who didn't vote were apathetic.
I have to say, this type of attitude makes me suspicious. One of the parties in US elections gains a lot by discouraging people in general not to vote, because it tilts the results in their favour. This might not apply to you, but I always wonder if these kinds of comments aren't just in support of that strategy.
This implies that you believe that the other party (from whichever one you were thinking of) would always win if voting were mandatory. This seems like a result of interacting almost entirely with those of the party you favor, like people in 2004 who asserted that since no one they knew had voted for Bush, he must have won by fraud.
There is plenty of room in the setup of US elections for one party to have an advantage when turnout is low but still have varied results from year to year and region to region even when voting is mandated. But more importantly, even when you can get 60% of the popular vote in a 100% turnout election, lower turnout can still increase this percentage if the low turnout meant proportionally more of the winning party voters turned out, resulting in more than 60% majority.
But you did say "people in general", not "people likely to vote for party X", so your statement only makes sense if you think people in general vote for party X, which is the same as saying that party X would certainly win if everyone voted.
Maybe you misstated what you really meant to say, but I think the inference from what you actually did say was reasonable.
I almost didn't read any further when you began accusing me of making up straw men and being a professional (troll, I assume?). That certainly was a neat trick. :)
The whole bit you wrote about Bush and fraud and hanging only with your own was the straw man. I can see how maybe my initial statement was incomplete, but this stuff is not exactly news in US politics.
Please pardon me if this seems obsessive-compulsive, but there's an interesting pathological form of "debate" where someone keeps throwing arguments out, ignoring any refutations, then declares victory. Of course I'm not accusing you of this -- such an accusation would be very flimsy -- but it's always something to watch out for.
I fail to see what is magical about not bothering to make a move when they win either way.
Actually, the LP is very good at getting on ballots, so write-ins are usually unnecessary for those who want to vote for them.
However, can you put together a cogent argument why he should go to all that trouble just so you can skim over the section in the results showing that the Libertarian Party candidate for Congress got a handful of votes?
Then you're left with the 98% of the public who wants nothing to do with your ideas. Hmm.
But one way every vote contributes is increasing voter turnout. Although your contribution is small, it always counts, no matter who you vote for. Mid-term elections have been averaging 37% voter turnout. As turnout gets smaller election results can drift arbitrarily far away from what the whole population wants, because only a subset is deciding. Corruption and manipulation become easier. High voter turnout is really really important to making the the election a legitimate process.
I wrote about this recently: http://www.kmeme.com/2010/10/why-you-should-vote.html
A thread with other suggestions why voting might be rational: http://lesswrong.com/r/discussion/lw/2z6/why_should_you_vote...
This is exactly why I am not voting; I'd rather not contribute to the illusion of legitimacy.
If you agree that single dollars don't matter, send your extra ones to me please....
Regardless, if you don't want to vote, that's fine. That just gives my vote more weight.
But yes, that it does give you "more weight". You can vote for Team Red or Team Blue and convince yourself either that the centrists who get elected are awesome and terribly supportive of the things you want - or that the remarkably similar centrists who got elected are crazy extremists who will destroy America.
That's crap. Why should I feel obligated to do something that has no affect on anything?
(I'm not saying that's definitively the case, but your statement implies that you should vote even if your vote doesn't matter. Why?)
It is definitely the case. In the rare instance when the vote is decided by one, rest assured a judge, and not the one, will settle the actual result. Voting is an absolutely pointless pyschological approval of two candidates, neither of whom was chosen democratically.
If anyone is actually interested in influencing policy, which is the whole point, get out your checkbook. Or, if you have a lot of time, get involved in the machinery of politics.
The argument people make about their votes 'not counting' is like an individual choosing not to join the basketball team because they might not hit the winning shot. Every point counts. I don't understand the extreme egotism that people would opt not to participate unless they get to cast the deciding vote. Talk about un-democratic? Some people want their votes to be more than equal apparently. It goes back to people complaining about the two party system and doing absolutely nothing to help third parties.
1. You vote out of solidarity to the people in a similar situation as you are and to represent that perspective on issues. If you feel strongly about something you would want others with the same perspective to also take part.
2. You vote as a role model for your friends and family and to give them a fair chance to cast their vote. If you don't set a good example for others, e.g. your kids, they're not going to have a fair chance to choose if they want to vote or not.
3. You vote to show support for a system where people have the right to vote, even if it's flawed. It's also out of respect to those who fought and those who continue to fight for the right to vote.
4. You vote to consistently show that you cannot be manipulated to not express your opinion. For instance moving election dates, changing locations of polling stations, saying that you shouldn't vote if you not informed etc.
5. You vote to question your own motives not to vote. If you have the conviction not to vote, then there shouldn't be a reason not to go through the voting process and casting either a blank/invalid vote or choosing not to vote at the absolute last moment. If you can't do this it's more likely that you are abstaining from voting out of convenience, not conviction.
What I find strange is that people generally don't seem to have a problem with offering their opinion outside of elections, not least on the Internet. I guess it has to do with having higher expectations when it comes to elections.
Democracy is based on people stepping up, coming together and making their voice heard. Voting was never meant to reflect the opinions of an individual, but rather the opinions of a movement.
Please don't do that. If you're going to vote, do it about things you care about after having considered all sides, and without first checking whether it's the way everybody around you is voting.
Vote on a case-by-case basis, without bias from your group or political party. Or please don't vote.
I would understand if you said that people should stay informed, but asking people not to vote seems undemocratic to me. Democracies are still supposed to be a reflection of the people. Not a reflection of those who had the opportunity to evaluate every issue without consideration of previous experiences. It seems to me you're blaming voters for something that is the responsibility of politicians. As a voter you have the right to vote even if you're wrong. I can't really make my point any clearer than this without seeming condescending, so this will be my last post in this exchange.
1. my vote doesn't matter. I live in a 100% blue state, it'll go Democrat no matter what. So whether I decide to vote democrat or republican or green, my vote really won't matter. + the redestricting is always aimed at propping up small states. Why does California and Delaware both get 2 senators?
2. the system is broken, there are no good politicians. There is no incentive for them to tell the truth or stick to campaign promises, so they don't.
3. it's too much of a hassle. If we can have a day off for Columbus day, I don't see why we can't have a day off for something as important as voting. And why does it have to be a day? Make it a 3 day weekend, so everyone gets a chance to vote. And voting should be easier, I don't see why I can't vote online...sure there might be some fraud, but surely it's possible to limit that, using a centralized voting website.
the democrats of today, are the republicans of just 10 years ago...and they get called socialists by the current crop of GOP. Why the shift to the right? Because they know they'll always have the Democrat vote, so they ignore them and shift to the right in order to get a few more independents.
Slightly off topic, but I'll bite: Because democracy is much more about protecting minorities than ensuring the majority is in charge. If Delaware and other small states were only ever represented on the federal level in proportion to their population, only issues that Texas and California cares about would ever be taken up.
That's why we have more subsidies for corn production than science research.
I'm sorry, but 10 states in the boonies with no people, should not be able to dictate policy to California. Crap like that is exactly why California ends up subsidizing half the red states, who then turn around and vilify it every chance they get.
If we didn't have the current system, only about 20 cities would be campaigned in for the Presidency. Also, given the bill a NY Rep tried to pass a couple of years ago, we wouldn't be growing any crops in this country (eco bill - massive urban support). The House is where population matters and is the origin of every budget. The House is where the population is considered and the Senate is for state considerations.
You guys get $2.03 for every dollar you send. (2nd highest in the nation after DC)
California could balance it's budgets too, if it got double what it paid in federal taxes every year.
shows it to not be #2 but close to the top.
And I think the point is still valid that CA could balance their budget if we had that nice ratio.
California needs to get ahold of its pensions, no one can fix that but themselves.
That's what just gets me about people exhorting everyone to vote when even such a supposedly well-informed group as HN has only the vaguest idea of how this country actually works.
2: Really? So what about the ones that promote causes you care about? E.g. I care about net neutrality. There are politicians who care about these things and try to advance legislation aligning with these things. Saying all politicians are bad is just simplistic.
3: It takes like... one hour (if at all) out of the day. You can also mail your vote in. I'll agree that I'd prefer online voting, but it's one action in two years.
It's in these politicians' best interest for people to get out and vote because it confers a veneer of legitimacy. But if a dictator holds an election in which he is the only candidate allowed to run, I would consider it a moral obligation to boycott the election. Similarly when there are two candidates who are, for all intents and purposes, equally undesirable, I refuse to vote for either.
Of course, if I were less lazy, I would investigate independent parties. But I don't feel these parties are fairly represented. For instance, the Democratic Party commonly sues to keep the Green Party off the ballot in a number of states. If everyone ignores this injustice and votes anyway, it appears as though the election was won fair and square.
Someone else on this thread pointed out that not voting is a vote. I feel the same. People attribute the low voting rate among Americans to an apathetic citizenry, but I think it can be better attributed to a broken system. I will not evaluate two poisons to elect the most nutritious. I won't do it.
You've constructed reasons not to vote, but you've left out the most important one in your reasoning: if everyone thought like you, we'd be giving absolute control to a small group of people. How do you think that would work out?
Every day I watch people make bad decisions for seemingly very good reasons. They are still bad decisions, though, and the key flaw is they either massively elevated an unimportant factor in the decision, or just didn't even consider the important factors.
What's strange, though, when this is pointed out to most people, they ignore the advice, sure in themselves that their process was correct. After the fact, they still have justifications about their decision, even if the prior stated flaws in their process turned out to be correct.
It just amazes me.
Voting is so badass.
If you vote for a winning candidate, then you can complain when they break their promises.
If you don't vote, you have nothing to complain about but your own laziness.
"I disagree with the system" is intellectually lazy and in my experience merely a cover story for apathy.
Another view is that perhaps no one wants to change the system because it is, all things considered, better than the alternatives.
You make the assumption enough people want to change it. They don't. At least, not yet. Candidates aren't some otherworldly beast, they are citizens. If people really wanted to enact change, they could.
You can't make a change alone. If enough people want to make the change, they can vote to make it happen. It's a really simple concept.
The populace is so poorly educated that researching candidates and issues is an enormous strain on them, and most people can't make themselves do it. Asking someone who got a poor education to read through a bill or look through a voting record is asking a lot.
Yes, you are (at least for the question), here:
> How will voting change the system if no candidate is willing to change it?
You have to make the assumption that people are willing to make the change for that question to be valid, otherwise, it reads like thsi:
"How will voting change the system if no candidate is willing to change it and voters aren't willing to change it?"
So yes, you do assume, for the question, that the voters want change. And if the majority of voters want that change, it can be made to happen. They simply vote for it.
Maybe I just assume too much of people. Was this little diversion really necessary?
But you were.
> Rather than call me a liar,
I didn't.
> you could assume that either you misunderstood,
I didn't. You said what you said. If you didn't mean what you said, fine. But then clarify it.
> or I misspoke and decided correcting it wasn't worth spending text on.
Then maybe you should avoid commenting on things you don't feel are worth your time, especially when you can't be bothered to say what you mean.
> Maybe I just assume too much of people.
I make the assumption people say what they mean. As you've demonstrated,
> Was this little diversion really necessary?
Apparently you found it necessary. Rather than simply correct what you wrote, you decided to disregard what I said and then comment on things completely unimportant to the discussion.
You asked a question, and I answered. If you aren't interested in a discussion, don't post here. If you are, at least have the courtesy to be clear about what you write. Being lazy and uncaring about quality aren't respected here.
You're saying that if a majority of people wanted change then they could vote for it, and it would happen.
But the change we've been discussing is the fact that 'majority want X' isn't a fair system in some peoples view.
If you believe, like I do, that "1 vote per person" is a flawed system and not good for the common good, there isn't really that much you can do.
The majority will vote for silly things that may well not be in their long term best interests. You can't trust the majority with anything.
So if you disagree with that premise (That one person per vote is fair), what should you do? throw your useless vote in the box with all the people who voted because they like the candidates hair?
FWIW I vote anyway since it's the lesser of 2 evils.
In the recent Australian election by election day each party had summarized there policies/ attacks into a few dot points which they had talked about over and over again hoping I guess to impart at least a few dot points on people before they vote.
If you look at the dynasties that win elections in the US - Bush, Kennedy, etc They may as well be a monarchy.
Democracy typically only gives you 2 choices, and if they are both from dynastial families, it's pretty much a monarchy with the illusion of democracy anyway.
> "Monarchy?! Sure, you might be lucky and get a good monarch – but their son could be a total douchebag (like Wilhelm II, the gaffe-emperor who led Germany into World War I)."
Sounds like Bush Sr and Bush Jr to me,
[+] As always with ancient democratic Athens several caveats apply, e.g. you had to be rather rich to be eligible for that.
Merit might work, but it has the capability to discriminate against certain classes (even those who might otherwise make informed decisions).
I might be able to accept a system where you have to perform some level of service to the state in order to gain a vote. Something like military service, peace corp, teaching, being an EMT, etc... But then that starts to seem to Starship Troopers to me.
Yes, and this is all you need to prove - an example of such a test would be the ability to match up policy statements to candidates. No need for a maths test.
Regarding the inability to read - If blind people can currently vote in your country, then the problem does not exist.
So you don't vote allowing OTHERS to decide the process for you.
Other people who say, elect leaders who nominate Conservative Supreme Court Judges, who then side with the FEC allowing corporations to fund political advertisements. This was quite preventable.
I mean good on you for standing to your principles but with a whole collective of intelligent people abstaining, it's making it much easier for powerful people who want certain laws to happen... well happen.
Asking me to vote is like asking me "Do you still beat your wife?" in some sense. There's no good way out. The best option is to not reply.
That's not even getting into my philosophical issues with government in the first place.
But just because your candidate loses doesn't mean that your voice hasn't been heard. It's just that more people who voted disagree with you than agree with you.
Alternative: If you don't vote, you fail to validate the enthusiasm of people who support one mostly-interchangeable political team or the other largely out of simple social identification.
There are no close races where I care about the outcome in my district. There are no initiatives I care to support or oppose.
I have fairly equal and tremendous disgust for both of the majority parties. On the issues I care about, I've bashed my head against reality enough to learn that the parties are indistinguishable in practice. I'm not going to trot down to the polls to give anyone a little thrill of excitement that they've gotten another vote for their preferred team.
Nor am I going to throw one of a handful of symbolic votes for a minority-party candidate for any office. The mainstream takes no notice of or interest in "third party" results, and any other interpretation of the supposed value of a symbolic vote is essentially an argument for magic.
I am not superstitious.
As for mandatory voting: Fuck you. I am not your mule; carry your own damn partisan water.
EDIT: Whoever downvoted this, YOU are the reason that HN is going to pot. You may not like that I am not voting, but instead why don't you instead respond telling me why I'm wrong?
Some people seem to get value out of voting itself, regardless of the outcome, which is bad news for a rational choice theory only looking at the value of the outcomes and not the inherent value of the choice itself.
I tend to not bother voting for issues that don't concern me. And frankly, the vast majority of issues that people get all excited about don't bother me one way or another.
I'm happy to pay a little more or a little less tax on various things, see schools built in one area and prisons not built in another. Go nuts with it all, and if it really effects your happiness I'm fine with letting you make little changes to the world around me.
Until you come up with something I find important, I'd prefer not to concern myself with it.
You can either be ignorant or informed. Not both at the same time. Claiming that everything is boring by way of being ignorant of everything is dishonest.
I am not saying that current affairs are interesting, but I would prefer people to be honestly ignorant to simply being arrogant.
I asked here, on the off chance that somebody has one that they think the HN audience might care about.
The delusion that anyone is actually voting between "person who won't eff things up" and "person who will eff things up" is not useful, though.
It's not a referendum. You're imparting political power on the party you vote for, relevant to anything that comes up in Congress in the next 2-6 years.
Sadly, it just reminded me who my options were...
Politicians in our country are worse than salesmen. That's why we have such little voter turnout, not because people don't feel obligated.
Taken to the extreme, you could have a direct democracy where individuals vote directly for proposed bills, bypassing the (usually vested) middleman. Voters would have to pass some competency exam on the subject of the bill before being allowed to cast a vote. In other words, you can't vote on internet regulation if you don't know how to access a web page.
The reason there will never be a license to vote is because you transfer an immense about of power to those who create the exams. Influence the exams and you decide the election. In addition, by putting up barriers towards voting, you decrease overall participation in the election, possibly alienating the general population.
Perhaps a better, more realistic option is to move towards direct democracy while simultaneously improving as much as possible education.
read some history, chap.
regardless, literacy tests were done before, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy_test and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws for a background of our (shameful) past.
Instead of it being based on education though it is based on wealth. The wealthy, behind closed doors, agree to a large extent on plausible policies for the country.
Then they present a limited set of alternatives and let the masses indicate which alternative makes them happiest.
The purpose of democracy is not to DECIDE anything. It is to give the illusion that the masses are in control. Without this illusion, they would turn violent.
Rest assured, the only policies the masses have control over are things that are emotionally potent but irrelevant: gay marriage, pledge of allegiance, etc. Distractions.
When I used to work on campaigns for a third party, the most annoying thing was the fact that there is a lot of inertia from people who have no idea who any of the candidates are ritually voting a party line. In NY, where I lived, there was even a special lever that marked the whole party row, to enable reduced thinking.
Another comment here says that politicians love an apathetic population. More correctly, they like apathetic populations that vote consistently.
Majority rules in Australia and the UK. In the parlimentary system, the potential for gridlock is far less (Yes, the Aussie Senate does slow some things down.) However, the major candidates do have to say some specific things in order to get elected--because they then go and pass them into law. Look at what the UK is doing to their budget. Couldn't happen here. In the US, gridlock is so endemic elections are much more about personality and/or voter disgust.
Mandatory voting in Australia. A good thing I think. A lot of American politics seems to be about convincing you to stay home because your candidate is a louse. In the USA, you could have Ghandi running against Mandela and there would still be mudslinging and scandal mongering.
[2008] Craig Ferguson: If you don't vote, you're a moron
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdRVQ4xwwmQ#t=06m25s
The above link "cuts to the chase"; however, the entire monologue is worth watching (more commentary on the campaigning, including its hypocrisy).
You receive your voting voucher thing by mail 2-3 weeks before the election.
I'm not in CA, though.
I think this should be something all people hold true, no matter how corrupt our politicians have or will become.
Get out there and vote next time, kids.
"Bad officials are elected by good citizens who do not vote." - George Nathan
Wait, you can't - you can't even identify the "stupid" or "evil" voters except by circularly defining them as "people who voted for bad politicians". For that matter, you can't identify the "good" ones except for "the ones who voted for good politicians".