How important is voting?

[radcen]

How important is voting?

1. Very.
2. Important, but futile.
3. Meh.
4. Not very.
5. Not at all.
6. Other

Are you part of the solution, or are you part of the problem?

• If you're an idiot/uninformed voter, you're part of the problem. You're lazy and/or a sucker for the politicians.
• If you don't vote at all, because you don't care (and, hence are probably not even here at Debate Politics to read this), you're part of the problem. You're letting the politicians have their way unchallenged.
• If you don't vote at all, because you think it's futile, you're part of the problem. I don't give a rat's arse how informed you are, or even if you're correct in your conclusions, you're still a sucker for the politicians by providing complicit approval for their actions.
• I'd rather you be incorrect and vote (provided you're sincere and earnest in your research), than correct and not vote. You may not be correct in your conclusions, but at least you're not a sucker or an enabler. I can accept that.

Personally, I don't deny the feelings of futility, but at the very least I'm not approving and I can say, "Don't blame me, I didn't approve of what they're doing(by either my action or inaction)."

 

[Dittohead not!]

If you base your vote on political ads and party loyalty, then it's probably best you just stay home on election day, maybe get yourself a set of pom poms and cheer for your favorite party.

If you base your vote on issues and candidates, then you're part of the 5% or so who actually make a difference. Better go to the polls.

 

[jamesrage]

I believe that voting is really important.At the same time I think voters who don't really know anything about the candidates shouldn't bother voting.This is why I hate those MTV get out and vote campaigns. It should be get informed and then go out and vote. Ignorant voters are why elected officials have an extremely low approval rating and high incumbent reelection rate.

 

[ChunkySalsa]

Meh. The entrenched hegemony weeds out anybody who'd rock the boat, giving us the "choice" between going South-Southeast or South-Southwest. Not to mention the fact that my state is so gerrymandered, SSW has already been eliminated as a viable option before I even stumble into the polls.

I'm not a completely stupid guy, but I know practically nothing about local issues. I can burn the cognitive resources to comprehend the legalese summaries, but usually don't bother. Forcing me to expend calculus test levels of mental effort to understand that a local gas station wants to sell booze on Sunday is bull****. I'm indifferent to most of that crap anyway and usually leave them blank.

There are also so many names on the ballot that I've never heard before. I'll research presidential and senate candidates, but why the **** should I care about the dude checking the veracity of gas pump gauges? Unless there's some kind of scandal, I wouldn't even recognize his name. And even then, I probably would only remember that I heard that name somewhere. When choosing someone for the Podunk Commissioner of Bureaucratic Minutia, I can a) randomly pick whoever's name I like the most b) just blindly vote by party or c) leave the form blank. I normally go with C.

 

[PeteEU]

Voting should be mandatory for all citizens that can legally vote. What is the point of having a democracy if people dont vote or participate.. then we might as well have kept our kings/queens/emperors.

 

[PirateMk1]

How important is voting?

1. Very.
2. Important, but futile.
3. Meh.
4. Not very.
5. Not at all.
6. Other

Are you part of the solution, or are you part of the problem?

• If you're an idiot/uninformed voter, you're part of the problem. You're lazy and/or a sucker for the politicians.
• If you don't vote at all, because you don't care (and, hence are probably not even here at Debate Politics to read this), you're part of the problem. You're letting the politicians have their way unchallenged.
• If you don't vote at all, because you think it's futile, you're part of the problem. I don't give a rat's arse how informed you are, or even if you're correct in your conclusions, you're still a sucker for the politicians by providing complicit approval for their actions.
• I'd rather you be incorrect and vote (provided you're sincere and earnest in your research), than correct and not vote. You may not be correct in your conclusions, but at least you're not a sucker or an enabler. I can accept that.

Personally, I don't deny the feelings of futility, but at the very least I'm not approving and I can say, "Don't blame me, I didn't approve of what they're doing(by either my action or inaction)."

Sorry but I rather have the idiots stay home. When they do stay home they are not a problem. They become a problem when they vote. I prefer fewer informed voter than a lot of brain dead ill informed twits.

 

[Spriggs05]

Voting should be mandatory for all citizens that can legally vote. What is the point of having a democracy if people dont vote or participate.. then we might as well have kept our kings/queens/emperors.

Democracy is where two idiots can outvote a genius....
people have a right not to participate, but they don't have a right to moan when they had an opportunity to change it.

 

[Cyrylek]

Voting should be mandatory for all citizens that can legally vote. What is the point of having a democracy if people dont vote or participate..

Aha, sure. Like the rights to speak freely, associate and (here in USA) bear arms mean we all have to stay in large, heavily armed groups 24/7, talking politics non-stop.

I understand that there are a few democratic countries (Australia, Brazil, one canton in Switzerland all other cantons are making fun of....) where voting is compulsory, on paper, but since balloting is secret, it is not really enforceable.

Correct me if I am wrong, Spain had compulsory voting on books in the beginning of the 20th century, but it was abandoned: just too silly.

 

[Cyrylek]

Depending on circumstances, voting may be very important, marginally important or futile, but it is such a microscopic effort, I have no idea why anyone who has any political preferences at all would neglect to do it.

 

[PeteEU]

Democracy is where two idiots can outvote a genius....
people have a right not to participate, but they don't have a right to moan when they had an opportunity to change it.

Disagree fully. It is a duty not a right.

 

[Cyrylek]

Disagree fully. It is a duty not a right.

A control question: Do you think military service should be a duty - all adults, male and female, disabled and conscientious objectors included?

 

[PeteEU]

Aha, sure. Like the rights to speak freely, associate and (here in USA) bear arms mean we all have to stay in large, heavily armed groups 24/7, talking politics non-stop.

I understand that there are a few democratic countries (Australia, Brazil, one canton in Switzerland all other cantons are making fun of....) where voting is compulsory, on paper, but since balloting is secret, it is not really enforceable.

Correct me if I am wrong, Spain had compulsory voting on books in the beginning of the 20th century, but it was abandoned: just too silly.

No clue on Spain since I aint Spanish. However in Denmark, where I am from.. we dont have compulsory voting which is fine.. when you have voter turnout of over 80%. What I am talking about is countries where voting has become a chore rather than a right and privilege.. they need a kick in the rear if you ask me. Having a voter turn out that barely breaks 50% is beyond pathetic.. and when I am talking about voter turnout.. it is not based on registered voters, but eligible voters.

 

[PeteEU]

A control question: Do you think military service should be a duty - all adults, male and female, disabled and conscientious objectors included?

It is in my country and many others for males. Granted not all males do military service since we dont have a massive army, but there is a lottery. As for females.. well that has to do with tradition more than anything. Disabled.. come on... and conscientious objectors dont exist.. just cowards and religious freaks.. no they should not be excused.

 

[Mathematician]

It depends on what you *know* about the set of potential voters with respect to the probability distributions of them voting and who they vote for.

IMO, there are many systems (e.g. weighted sum) which could be used to minimize the damage done by the "not-so-bright" voters. Pure democracy, where every vote counts equally, is rarely ideal.

 

[Cyrylek]

No clue on Spain since I aint Spanish. However in Denmark, where I am from...

My mistake. (Love Denmark, by the way. Of all European cities, København is where I feel most relaxed and, strangely, "at home". (Although London and Krakow come close).

What I am talking about is countries where voting has become a chore rather than a right and privilege.. they need a kick in the rear if you ask me. Having a voter turn out that barely breaks 50% is beyond pathetic.. and when I am talking about voter turnout.. it is not based on registered voters, but eligible voters.

I understand the sentiment, but still: the State of a free country does not own its population. It's function is to prevent people from doing harm to each other, but beyond that - they are just people who happen to reside within a given jurisdiction - most of them by the accident of birth. They cannot be forced to be good citizens, or good anything. "Good" cannot be forced, by definition. It is "bad" that we use force to deal with, no?

 

[Cyrylek]

It is in my country and many others for males. Granted not all males do military service since we dont have a massive army, but there is a lottery. As for females.. well that has to do with tradition more than anything. Disabled.. come on... and conscientious objectors dont exist.. just cowards and religious freaks.. no they should not be excused.

Conscientious objectors don't exist?

When I was growing up in Moscow, USSR, a Lithuanian, Catholic teenager who lived on our street chopped off two fingers on his hand, to avoid that excellent Afghan adventure. No one among my peers thought he was a coward or a freak. He was a hero. (The Soviet prison he was heading to for doing what he did was not any less dangerous than Kandahar)

We all assumed that we are voiceless, helpless slaves; I was fervently plotting my escape - but I did not resist (discounting a few illegally copied "bad books" and other such minor acts of dissent). He did. He refused to be property of the State.

His standards were higher than ours.

Why should I think that an American Mennonite opposed to all and any military service is different? Because I hated that political regime, and mostly like this one? Doesn't sound very convincing.

 

[PeteEU]

My mistake. (Love Denmark, by the way. Of all European cities, København is where I feel most relaxed and, strangely, "at home". (Although London and Krakow come close).

Its just the winter weather thats the problem.. and the socialists there.

I understand the sentiment, but still: the State of a free country does not own its population. It's function is to prevent people from doing harm to each other, but beyond that - they are just people who happen to reside within a given jurisdiction - most of them by the accident of birth. They cannot be forced to be good citizens, or good anything. "Good" cannot be forced, by definition. It is "bad" that we use force to deal with, no?

I find this troubling.. what do you define as good and bad?

I am not saying democracy is perfect, and I do believe sometimes politicians have to do the right thing and not the popular thing.. but not voting will never change anything and only empower the power hungry to do bad things.

Let me put it this way.. had American's actually come out and voted by Danish turnout standards in 2000.. then we would not have had Bush. But because almost 50% of American's choose not to get off their fat asses, then the world was stuck with a mini dictator and his party of henchmen that has pushed the world into war. I know you probably see Bush as a savior or something but my point is that there are far more democrats than republicans in the US, so it is in your vested interest to keep the turn out low because that is how you maintain your power. Now it does not have to be the US we are talking about, because in low turnout countries across the planet.. you have the same problems. In fact in Denmark it is the reverse almost.. low turnout means the Social Democrats often gain power/win an election.. but we are talking about mid 75% turnout then heh...

Point is, that people should feel obligated to go vote.. sure work, sickness, being abroad and so on.. might prevent you from voting (although there is absentee voting in some countries.. cough), but you should do your damnest to vote.. even blank if need be.. but VOTE!

 

[PeteEU]

Conscientious objectors don't exist?

When I was growing up in Moscow, USSR, a Lithuanian, Catholic teenager who lived on our street chopped off two fingers on his hand, to avoid that excellent Afghan adventure. No one among my peers thought he was a coward or a freak. He was a hero. (The Soviet prison he was heading to for doing what he did was not any less dangerous than Kandahar)

We all assumed that we are voiceless, helpless slaves; I was fervently plotting my escape - but I did not resist (discounting a few illegally copied "bad books" and other such minor acts of dissent). He did. He refused to be property of the State.

His standards were higher than ours.

Why should I think that an American Mennonite opposed to all and any military service is different? Because I hated that political regime, and mostly like this one? Doesn't sound very convincing.

Oh they do, but in a democracy.. a real one.. they are cowards or religious freaks.

My point is, many of these objectors do it to just avoid getting into the military because it will spoil their fun time and money making ability for a year or two.

 

[Cyrylek]

. I know you probably see Bush as a savior

You "know"? You do? Based on what?

there are far more democrats than republicans in the US, so it is in your vested interest to keep the turn out low because that is how you maintain your power.

First of all, this is incorrect. There are a little more self-professed Democrats than self-professed Republicans in the US, but the Democratic advantage is negligible comparing to the bulk of the independent, neither-Dem-nor-GOP, "fiscally conservative, socially liberal" voters. I am one of them.

Secondly, "I" don't have any power to maintain. I voted for Gary Johnson in the last election. One of the reasons that I did, despite the obvious futility of such gesture? - because he would never consider compulsory voting - or compulsory military service - as anything - well, "considerable"....

 

[Cyrylek]

I find this troubling.. what do you define as good and bad?

You know, the usual: coercion and fraud - bad, freedom of choice and empathy - good. The Golden Rule, and all that jazz....

 

[WCH]

Unfortunately the current mantra seems to be, "Ask not what you can do for your country but, what your country can do for YOU"

Until that is reversed.........:violin

 

[radcen]

Meh. The entrenched hegemony weeds out anybody who'd rock the boat, giving us the "choice" between going South-Southeast or South-Southwest. Not to mention the fact that my state is so gerrymandered, SSW has already been eliminated as a viable option before I even stumble into the polls.

I'm not a completely stupid guy, but I know practically nothing about local issues. I can burn the cognitive resources to comprehend the legalese summaries, but usually don't bother. Forcing me to expend calculus test levels of mental effort to understand that a local gas station wants to sell booze on Sunday is bull****. I'm indifferent to most of that crap anyway and usually leave them blank.

There are also so many names on the ballot that I've never heard before. I'll research presidential and senate candidates, but why the **** should I care about the dude checking the veracity of gas pump gauges? Unless there's some kind of scandal, I wouldn't even recognize his name. And even then, I probably would only remember that I heard that name somewhere. When choosing someone for the Podunk Commissioner of Bureaucratic Minutia, I can a) randomly pick whoever's name I like the most b) just blindly vote by party or c) leave the form blank. I normally go with C.

Fair point. I don't always vote for every podunk judge or commissioner on the ballot. I've been known to vote for the races where I am informed and leave those blank if I feel I cannot make an informed decision. Most of those lower-level people, for the most part, are only doing what those at higher levels allow them to do.

Sorry but I rather have the idiots stay home. When they do stay home they are not a problem. They become a problem when they vote. I prefer fewer informed voter than a lot of brain dead ill informed twits.

I agree, I'd rather idiots not vote, either, but that wasn't my point for the purposes of this thread. My point was that idiots, whether they vote or not, are part of the problem, precisely because by being idiots the system takes advantage and does it's own selfish/idiotic things. I'd rather voters not be idiots.

 

[German guy]

Maybe that's not a problem you have in the US, due to your majority voting system, but I'd say to fellow Germans that voting is important, don't they want to end up with lunatics in the parliament.

There are anti-constitutional, anti-freedom parties, and their chance to win seats increases, the lower the turnout is. Even if you don't know which of the established parties to vote for, you dislike them equally or just consider them the lesser evil -- most at least know they don't want Nazis in the parliament. So vote against them. Vote for the lesser evil.

Also, I am annoyed by people who keep constantly complaining about "the politicians", yet don't vote. There are many parties to chose from, even if many of them are just minor splinter parties with few prospects of winning seats, if you want to protest against the established parties. And the only reason why none of them wins seats, and does not bring more competition into the parliament, is because those who are fed up with the established who are allegedly all the same, don't vote but stay at home.

I like to tell them: Better use your freedom to make a difference, instead of complaining.

 

[penn1954]

How important is voting?

1. Very.
2. Important, but futile.
3. Meh.
4. Not very.
5. Not at all.
6. Other

Are you part of the solution, or are you part of the problem?

• If you're an idiot/uninformed voter, you're part of the problem. You're lazy and/or a sucker for the politicians.
• If you don't vote at all, because you don't care (and, hence are probably not even here at Debate Politics to read this), you're part of the problem. You're letting the politicians have their way unchallenged.
• If you don't vote at all, because you think it's futile, you're part of the problem. I don't give a rat's arse how informed you are, or even if you're correct in your conclusions, you're still a sucker for the politicians by providing complicit approval for their actions.
• I'd rather you be incorrect and vote (provided you're sincere and earnest in your research), than correct and not vote. You may not be correct in your conclusions, but at least you're not a sucker or an enabler. I can accept that.

Personally, I don't deny the feelings of futility, but at the very least I'm not approving and I can say, "Don't blame me, I didn't approve of what they're doing(by either my action or inaction)."

I do vote every election, but I find great futility

in doing so,at least federally.

In my city we can at change things a little.

 

[Muhammed]

I depends. People who are ignorant should not be able to vote IMO.