People get to thinking the craziest things about voting.
You want to speak for 3 to 5 young people? What’s that mean? Does someone see your ballot, determine your age, assume you’re speaking for 3-5 people and somehow make a policy decision? Do you walk in, pull the lever, and feel a momentary sense of greatness as you know you vote respresents what 3 of your classmates are thinking?
And then this…
Well, actually 2000 supports the exact opposite of what (I think) you’re saying. A lot of people boosted the popular vote for Gore. It was a wasted effort.
I too grew up in a compulsory voting situation and I certainly got the impression that the political parties tended to pay more attention to what the public had to say because if you failed as a government your were more likely to be replaced. *Gough *gough…Anyway that being said the elections are the time to speak out in whatever way you can, gees if you don’t like it change it and the only way to change it is to take part. If you don’t participate how can you expect change?
See, these are the kinds of things people say because there isn’t really a logical reason to vote.
Your participation doesn’t change things. It doesn’t do anything. The people in power don’t notice. The guy who lost doesn’t notice. They don’t care that you voted. You FEEL like you have to participate, but its really a lot less effort if you come to terms with the realization that your voting doesn’t do anything more than my non-voting.
Next election. Vote. Do it. Remember what you voted for on every issue. Open up the paper the next day and re-tabluate the results based on if you had stayed home and not voted at all.
If there are other reasons you think you should vote, then by all means do, but you’re not affecting the process any more than the guy who lives next door to you who didn’t vote.
Actually, this ‘infantesimle effect’ may be one of the strongest reasons to vote. This analysis becomes the bible for politicians and their consultants. What issues brought out their supporters, what turned them away, who voted for them, who voted for their opponent. It is from this template that the candidates run for office. (In fact, I believe that a number of President Bush’s recent decisions have been designed to consolidate his base) Not voting creates a vicious circle. For example, 18-21 represent the lowest turnout percentages in most elections with common reason being that the candidates don’t address their concerns. Why should a candidate waste resources addressing the issues of a group that don’t show up at the polls? Especially when they could spend their time on people that will vote. In a perfect system, candidates would listen to and address every issue. However, they have neither the time nor the resources to do so. They focus their efforts on those items that will generate the most votes. The bottom line is this: By not voting, you marginalize your issues. Granted, it is just the first step, but it is a necessary one. No, your single vote won’t make a difference today, but when the results are analyzed and the candidates see who is voting and why, then your concerns may be addressed.
How can you say this…??? Can you not see a reason for voting? If the people in power only have to convince 30 percent of the population then it is all the better and easier for them. And yes it becomes easier for them because they only have to justify their actions to the people paying for their campaigns because you don’t care, which then becomes screw you because you don’t care, the elected official is only interested in repaying the favour that got them elected. He does this by passing laws favorable to those that help get him elected giving out contracts to friends and such. When you have a situation where you have to justify your actions to the whole population then it is harder on the SOB’s who would like to think they can do what ever they please. It also makes it harder for governments because campaign financing becomes more honest, because there is more of a need to explain why and how when every one has a say, a governemet then has to justify what they are doing to the people and not just to a select few. stand for something or fall for anything, no matter how small your part may seem it can have an effect if enough people feel the same way.
The Election is the time we are given to make ourselves heard collectively, maybe the pickings aren’t that great between the two candidates but if you don’t use the time given to you to make a choice how can you complain after the fact. Besides if you get enough people feeling the same way as you do and willing enough to take action on those feelings then things will change. If you do nothing how can you expect change.
Great arguement if you change I’ll vote, yeah that’s going to work. :rolleyes:
I know it’s not a perfect process but we have to be a part of that process if we expect change. How can you expect change if your not prepared to speak when you are given the chance?
Well, if you live in Virginia, you should vote for no other reason just to cancel out the vote of elitists who think some people shouldn’t have the same rights as they do.
Remember that the distribution between people who vote and people who don’t vote is not random. People with certain interests are more likely to vote than others. So, the interests of those who don’t vote are less important to politicians than the interests of people who do, for reasons which should be obvious.
For instance …
I once heard that 70% of tenants don’t vote. Seventy percent.
What that means is that any politician faced with a decision that may benefit tenants vs. one that may benefit landlords (or homeowners, or any other non-tenant) can tell him/herself that there’s no need to consider what tenants want, because they’re not going to vote anyway, and therefore s/he risks little by ignoring them or pissing them off.
So, as a tenant, I vote. And I sometimes write letters to my representative telling them so.
Now, replace ‘tenant’ with any other interest group that you identify with - student, woman, Asian-American, person under 25, person with environmental conscience, etc.
Although it’s nice to think that politicians don’t coldly say ‘Well, we know that [people with characteristic X] don’t vote, so we shouldn’t be concerned about introducing policies that will hurt them’ I think that quite a lot of decisions get made that way, explicitly or not.
Person A says “you change this law and I’ll vote for you.”
Person B says “I voted for you so don’t change that law.”
Politician says to person B “of course I won’t, are you still coming to dinner Friday”
Politician still hasn’t even recognised person A as being serious.
No, I don’t see a reason to vote. When election day comes around, I have a two part question to answer.
What is the purpose of going to the polls? A: to get my guy and my issues “in”.
Does my going to the polls actually contribute towards those ends? A: No. I open the paper the next day and on every one of the issues I could have changed my vote and it wouldn’t have mattered.
This is silly. If only 30 percent of the people vote, you’re still going to have to get to those 30. 15 still want one thing and 15 still want another.
If you were able to poll 30% of the population about something they want (do you prefer Coke or Pepsi? Do you prefer Kerry or Bush?) and you made a decsion for the country based on that 30%, you would be incredibily accurate. Probably within hundredths of a percent. And THEN, you throw in something like the electoral college and those small percentages don’t even matter (now THAT we saw in the last election).
But, the good thing about elections is that the 50% you’re polling are the people that actually give a crap.
And that’s another thing – I don’t give a crap. I really don’t care if Bush or Kerry gets elected. I still get up, go to work, go home, eat, watch a little tube, and then go to bed. Whoever is president (or mayor or if Bill #43 passes) pretty much has no effect on my life.
Dang, we have about 50% who think W is doing great, and 50% who don’t. I say “I don’t give a shit about it”? I mean, no matter which side I come down on, 50% of the people are still going to think I’m a moron.
Okay, now I get it. With math skills like that, no WONDER you support Bush :D.
(Hint: your age bracket isn’t factored into how much your vote is worth).
I used to waffle about how important voting was, until I realized something fundamental: The Christian Coalition doesn’t want me to vote. Or you, randwill: they made incredible inroads in politics in the mid and late eighties and early nineties due in large part to their incredible voter turnout compared to the general population. And even today they’re using the same stretegies, although I’ve not read them being as explicit about them as they used to be.
When you don’t vote, you’re cooperating entirely with the CC’s agenda for your country, and you gotta ask yourself: is that something you want to do? Do you really like making the Pat Robertsons of the world happy?
Don’t vote, and they’ll dance a polka on your ballot. Vote, and you can help lessen their power.
It’s already been referred to once this thread, but there’s an concept in economics called “rational ignorance”. It’s a cost-benefit analysis for voting, and the results are (surprise!) that the costs of voting (including not only making time on voting day to find the polls and gas costs and so forth, but also the time it takes to become adequately informed of the issues and to reach your decisions) are almost definitely going to outweigh the benefits (defined not as any intrinsic value you might receive from the process, but in a purely technical manner as the likelihood of your vote making a difference).
Not bothering with the process makes a great deal of sense for many people, and that fact manifests in voter participation rates.
And there are those of us who tell ourselves, “Gonna vote. Gonna make it to the polls” but something seems to come up and it doesn’t really happen. And they know that it didn’t really make a difference but feel pangs of guilt.
But, there are those of us who are honest with ourselves about it and don’t fret or worry and just plain old don’t vote. We know it as election day approaches and we know it on election day.
This is only true if the demographic makeup of voters (that is, people who actually vote, not just people who are eligible) is the same as that of nonvoters. Such is not the case however. According to a Census Bureau report on the November 2000 election (pdf file), voting rates are highest among the following groups:
Whites (61.8%)
65 to 74 year olds (72.2%)
people with graduate degrees (81.9%)
people with family incomes over $50,000 (72%)
women (61%)
married people (67%)
homeowners (65%)
people who haven’t moved in more than 5 years (72%)
Midwesterners (63%)
people in states with easier registration processes
Voting rates are lowest among these groups:
Asians and Pacific Islanders (43.3%)
18 to 24 year olds (36.1%)
high school dropouts (38.0%)
people with family incomes under $10,000 (38%)
men (58%)
people who have never been married (44%)
renters (44%)
people who have moved less than a month ago (36%)
Southerners (57%)
people in states where you have to register in advance of the election
Obviously people who vote will tend to vote in favor of things that benefit themselves. The politicians know this, so they will try to appeal to those groups who actually vote. If you don’t make your opinion known by recording it on a ballot, no one in power will care enough to do anything about it; therefore, you have no power.
This is a very shortsighted and ultimately false idea. It’s kind of the inverse of the tragedy of the commons; the less people feel the need to vote, the more power is concentrated in the hands of a small group and the more the good of the whole population is compromised. Consider this: if you’re a wealthy old woman, your vote matters less because plenty of other wealthy old women will be voting also. But if you’re a young man flipping burgers for a living, not very many other young burger flipping dudes will be at the polls so your vote actually matters more.