I’ve been meaning to start this thread for a while now. This idea was sparked by a segment on The Daily Show maybe a week or two ago. Jon mentioned that Bush’s approval rating was something like 34%, and the other guy said, “Well, 34% is enough to win an election.” The audience laughed uncertainly, wondering where this was leading, and the guy essentially explained that, with voter turnout as low as it is, only 30-some percent of eligible voters need to choose a candidate in order for that candidate to win.
So, what if the media reported elections that way? By percentage of eligible voters, instead of by percentage of those who actually voted.
I’m too lazy to find the number of eligible voters, because I’m just trying to make a point, not give accurate statistics.
So, assuming for a moment that 42.45% of eligible voters voted in 2004, it would be correct to say that Bush won the election with only 21.53%, against Kerry’s 20.49%.
If TV and newspapers reported results this way, perhaps people would feel more compelled to vote, because they would be more aware of how much potential rests with the people who are too lazy to vote. (Not that all of them are necessarily lazy; they may have other reasons for not voting, but still.) I doubt this ever will happen, but I think perhaps it should happen.
I’m kind of astounded by how readily people eat up the propaganda that one ought to vote. To make your argument, first you must establish that a high voter turn-out is beneficial in some way. Is it that you think that the results would be different if more people voted? Is it that you think they would more accurately represent the preferences of the people? Why isn’t obstaining from a national election as much a concrete communication as voting? Essentially, not voting makes the statement that you believe that the difference between the candidates is not significant enough to be worth your time to voice a preference. I’d argue that for the vast majority of people, this is true in most elections; they don’t care enough one way or the other, so their time is actually more valuable than voting.
Obviously, it can’t be as much of a “concrete” communication, given that not voting is simply a complete lack of communication. If someone doesn’t vote, was it a “none of the above” protest vote? Was it saying that although you thought about voting, your time is more important? Is it saying that you’re so uninformed that the right thing to do is abstain? Or is it just saying that you’re too lazy to bother voting?
Now, I’m not saying that everyone should be forced to vote. There are valid reasons for not voting. And I’m not sure that forcing an apathetic, uninformed person to vote would be a good thing - such people casting votes in large numbers might have a negative impact, even, if they vote for the “wrong” reasons.
However, I don’t think you can honestly say that 60% of the US populace methodically decided to have a “protest vote” by not voting. And if this were the case, I’d support adding a “none of the above” choice to the ballot, so that you can actually concretely communicate your dissatisfaction with the candidates.
Oh, and as to the OP. I think that’s a great idea. Maybe they should do both - state each candidates share of the votes, and their share of votes from the total number of eligible voters.
Even if the government doesn’t officially tally those stats, it would be interesting if the media would do this as part of their coverage of election results.
I was unaware that the media ignored this issue; I thought it got some regular coverage and that low voter turnout was common knowledge. What Waenara says is very true; if someone doesn’t vote, you don’t know what is means and can’t reliably interpret it. Thus, those statistics are basically trivia. They don’t tell you anything of deeper value, just “a lot people didn’t vote.” If news outlets did some research into why people don’t vote, that might be interesting.
That’s the complicated answer. The simple answer is that using figures that include people who chose not to participate doesn’t make sense. The electoral vote, which determines the results of election, is awarded based on the participating vote, not the overall number of eligible voters.
I definitely don’t think reporting those percentages will shame people into voting. People here vote if they think doing so will benefit them or make a difference, and if the candidates can’t convince them of that, why should the news media? I don’t think the news media should be attempting to shame people into voting like a high school government teacher.
Perhaps it is true that mostt of the voting populace wasn’t actively attempting a “protest vote”, but in that case, why not ask why these people weren’t motivated to vote? I find it hard to believe that so many millions of people would turn down an opportunity that supposedly gives them such benefit. I think the majority of these citizens see voting as something where the ability to change the outcome isn’t worth the effort-- and, in my opinion, they’re largely right. If such a large number of eligible voters don’t feel like any candidate is worth taking the time to vote for, let’s take a closer look at the candidates and the parties that they represent, not the voters.
It’s irrelevant why the individuals didn’t vote. Maybe they were too busy working a second job. Maybe they preferred to stay home with their kids, or go out drinking with buddies. But the bottom line is that they are disinterested. Until you support your claim that they ought to be interested, you’ve argued nothing.
What I see is a system that fails to present any meaningful option to the majority of voters. The U.S. Government is so remote from their day-to-day lives that they have no cause to support one rich old white guy over the other. It’s no wonder they vote for the one who seems personable. As far as they’re concerned, they are just picking the person who is going to interrupt their regularly scheduled television.
It reminds me of student government elections. Why should I care who is class president? I’m not going to buy the year book or go to homecoming.
It is, but it’s not nearly as widely reported as the percentage of the vote that each candidate gets.
I know that people may have good reasons for not voting, but I think many people (not all the non-voters, but many of them) would look at numbers like this and think, “Wow, how can I possibly know whether those results accurately reflect the desires of all Americans?” I suppose this would apply to someone who really wants a particular outcome, but feels like they can’t make a difference.
I guess what I’m saying is, perhaps turnout should be low, but not nearly as low as it is now. In that case, anyone have an idea of what the “right” turnout would be? 50%, 80%, 95%?
Too many times, we think, “Well, it’s so close” or “We’re outnumbered”, when a bit of serious turnourt could change things a lot. I live in a safe GOP district, but the people I actually know… not so much.
A LOT of people I know don’t vote, ever. They tend to be younger & more socially liberal than those who do. The religious right has a lot of power, not because they are numerous, but because they are radicalised & mobilized. The “live & let live” types aren’t.
If people started to realize just how puny a plurality elected every single dink in office in this country, they wouldn’t feel that reform is so difficult. Certain religious & business interests have caught on, but the rest of us are less conscious of it. So we let the domination by unrepresentative factions continue, because we think we have no choice.
I’m glad this thread popped up again. I started to compose a reply to TJdude825’s last post, but had some computer trouble and quit.
But does their vote make a difference? I doubt that mine does. New York will probably go overwhelmingly to the Democratic candidate in 2008, and Hillary Clinton has no credible opposition right now for 2006. The governor’s race is also looking totally lopsided.
Turnout is a chicken-and-egg situation to some degree. The greater the turnout, the less each individual vote means.
I think people should vote, and I just voted in a school board election an hour and a half ago. But if I was arguing with a committed non-voter, I couldn’t prove that it’s more valuable for him individually to vote than spend the time working or doing whatever he’d be doing. And I’m not opposed to the news reporting the eligible voter numbers, and surveys of planned nonvoters could be very revealing - but I do think it’s not their job to encourage people to vote, or even worse to try to shame people into voting. Actual voters is the more important and newsworthy statistic and deserves more coverage.
The latter figure is actually harder to fix precisely, isn’t it? A person who might be eligible to vote in one state might not be in another (because of laws barring ex-cons from voting). For that matter, as we saw in Florida in 2000, even determining who can vote in a given state can be a puzzle.