My wife and I were having a discussion over the Presidential election. She brought up the point that voting is a right, and I told her that it was a responsibility. Does anyone have an answer for me??
Both.
Voting is a right given to you by the Constitution. Short of renouncing your citizenship or being convicted of a felony, it cannot be taken away from you.
It is also your civic responsibility to learn about the candidates and issues and cast your vote intelligently and responsibility.
Zev Steinhardt
Not totally on topic, but interesting nonetheless. Our own manhattan on disenfranchisement of felons.
Zev, I couldn’t agree more.
In the same vein, can anyone explain to me why only 50 per cent of Americans actually turn out to vote? Here in New Zealand anything less than 80 per cent is considered a low turnout.
Part of the low turnout is due, I’m sad to say, to my age group. Yes, we 18 to 21 year olds turn out in record low numbers to vote year after year. I think that political activism in my age group died when Nixon signed the bill ending the draft.
So there’s a few percentage points right there. I’m not sure how many.
Another is that America is pretty different from New Zealand. America has a population of about 300 million, I believe. How big is NZ? Very different political climate, when a large portion of your population goes to work three hours after another large portion.
Our very different climate (political, economic, ecological, etc) engenders a very different attitude in citizenry. Many feel the system is corrupt/doesn’t represent them, and see no need to vote. Many actually don’t have time to vote because of jobs (yeah, right, it’s supposed to be a day off).
Can anyone come up with demographics for non-voters?
As for the OP:
I say that voting is a right that makes us sovereigns of our nation. This authority carries with it a responsibility to rule wisely. And to rule. That is, half our voters are failing in their sovereign responsibilities.
I once read (don’t ask, because I don’t remember where) that in the former Soviet Union, voting was MANDATORY.
Now why would that be?
I’m reminded of a bumper sticker that said,
DON’T VOTE - IT JUST ENCOURAGES THEM.
And on that note, perhaps more people would participate if they thought it would do any good.
It is here in Australia. We’re rare (I think Belgium has compulsory voting too) but I don’t think it makes us like the former Soviet Union. In practice you can get out of it pretty easily (“I had the 'flu”) and of course you don’t have to make any marks on the piece of paper, or you can write insulting messages (as a scrutineer this gives me something to do on election night).
IIRC NZ used to have compulsory voting. I think it was abolished late in “Piggy” Muldoon’s tenure. High turnout is probably partly habitual.
I believe that voting is a responsibility. It is only a right in the US, and I hate to use the word “right” casually.
There are still several ways to become disenfranchised in this country.
Have you noticed that millions of people bitch about the political situation, but in terms of the percentages, many of them never bother to vote?
I’ll bet that if free, unpressured voting abilities were given to a group of people who never had them before, they would come out in droves.
Maybe we are just spoiled and lazy.
I think that of the 50% non-voters, probably half of them have no interest in politics, and the other half feel that it doesn’t matter if they vote or not because their ballot looks like a choice between hemorrhoids and boils. No alternatives to the usual choices are given an opportunity to become viable candidates. (They are excluded from the debates and not given media coverage, for example). Since choices are dominated by the two major parties, with unlimited amounts of corporate dollars going to both sides, it is practically a foregone conclusion that no one else stands a chance. Ross Perot was, of course, a major exception, but only because he had his own personal fortune with which to finance his campaign. And then the big two simply stole his issues and rendered the reform party inconsequential. Throw in Buchanan to reduce the party to internal fighting, and that was the death knell.
Of all the pundits tearing apart the implications of this debacle, only Jesse Ventura (haha) got to the meat of the matter. Paraphrasing here, he said our many of voting systems suck big time and it is therefore impossible to know, error margins considered, WHO really won in Florida, and the credibility of our elections has dived into the toilet. And THAT is the most dangerous thing that has happened.
I think the United States should consider following the example of Australia, where I believe voting is mandatory for all eligible voters. It forces people to pay attention to civic matters, and after all it’s not like anyone is forcing to vote for anybody in particular in Australia.
I would be interesting to see how a mandatory voting scheme might have changed the outcome of our most recent presidential election.
It’s also interesting to see how people would react. Forcing people to do anything, whether it be voting or breaking wind at set intervals, would have people in a screaming uproar, and most people know it. As most people see it, having the right to vote also means having the right not to vote.
So, by God, if I choose not to vote, and you want me to, I’m not going to be happy about it. Why? Because fuck you, that’s why. We’re a cantankerous lot when it comes to being told what we have to do. (shoulds are a different matter entirely, we often ignore them [you should vote])
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by zev_steinhardt *
**
I find this business about felons losing their right to vote very spooky. At an individual level it might make sense – be bad enough and something important is taken away.
However, in a larger social context, it is quite disturbing, for it encourages the disenfanchisement of underclasses – the same underclasses who most need to vote to change the system to make political, social and economic improvements.
The fact that the franchise can be lost doesn’t mean it’s not a “right”. Many rights–the right to freedom of movement, the right to property, the right to bear arms, or the right to life itself–can be taken away by due process of law if you do something bad enough.
As for the O.P., I agree with most of the rest of the posters to this thread that it’s both. I think of most rights/responsibilities as being on something of a spectrum. Freedom of speech is mostly a “right”, but clearly has some obligations or responsibilities attached to it–the obligation not to libel or slander, the obligation not to be a total jerk or moron on internet message boards. Serving on juries could be seen as a civil or political right–the right of free citizens to sit in judgement when crimes are committed against their communities, and not have such important decisions made by unaccountable and potentially tyrannical overlords–but clearly is mainly a civic duty. I think voting is pretty close to being in the middle of that spectrum–about 50/50. It’s both a great political right–the right of free people to govern themselves–and a great political duty–the obligation of those people to govern themselves wisely and justly.
That’s because the U.S. system of government is fundamentally different from that of most other countries in that they vote for individuals, not political parties. If the candidate you voted for doesn’t win, your vote basically has no value. In other countries seats of parliament are usually distributed proportionally to the percentage of votes a party recieves.
There are of course reasons the U.S. uses this system. Primarily because it’s not strictly speaking a single nation and more a union of states. Having a proportional distribution of parliamentary seats and still dividing power equally between 50 states would be difficult.
Another reason could be that both the american mind-set and legislation places more emphasis on the individual than other nations.
Personally, I don’t like it. I think it limits political diversity and practically forces people to vote for the lesser of two evils.
Kiwiboy, would you happen to know the stats on voter participation in the elections preceeding NZ’s change to partial proportional voting? Did the change make a difference in voter participation?
Working in a law office as I do, I tend to look at things from a legal point of view. And from a strictly legal point of view, voting * is * a right and is * not * a responsibility.
I have a legal right to vote. If the election board violates my right to vote, I can sue to have that right enforced. In fact, that is being done right now in Florida, with umpteen voters claiming they were denied the right to vote because allegedly they couldn’t read the friggin’ ballot.
Do I have a civic responsibility to inform myself about the candidates and issues? Only in a strict moral sense. When I walked into the booth this November 7, I had given careful thought to the presidential candidates, the gubernatorial candidates, the senate candidates, the U.S. House candidates, and some of the proposed state constitutional amendments. I voted accordingly. Then I turned the page and saw candidates for coroner, sheriff, county assessor, and other offices I don’t even remember. Half these were people whose names I had never even heard. (I left my ballot unpunched for each of them; I refuse to vote on name recognition, party affiliation, or any similarly asinine criterion). I was unprepared to face that ballot; I had failed my civic responsibility. And the scary thing is, I was probably better informed than half the voters who stood in that booth that day.
Now what, legally, can be done to me on account of my failure to adequately inform myself on the issues and candidates? * Absolutely nothing. * Nobody can sue me for failing to prevent an incompentent county assessor from being elected. Nobody can bring an action to invalidate my vote. Nobody can get a court order requiring me to read the newspaper more carefully next time so I know what offices are up for grabs. And had I chosen not to vote, no legal action of any kind could have been brought against me.
Legally, I cannot be held responsible for that vote in any way.
That’s not to say I don’t feel pretty embarassed about my election-booth performance. I want to do better next time, and I will try. But that’s just my personal feeling; it’s not my legal responsibility.