• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should you cast a vote even if you're not informed on the candidates/issues

I vote

  • on everything and will continue to do so

    Votes: 6 25.0%
  • on everything but will not going forward

    Votes: 1 4.2%
  • only when informed

    Votes: 15 62.5%
  • I don't vote

    Votes: 2 8.3%

  • Total voters
    24
  • Poll closed .

Gaius46

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 15, 2012
Messages
19,648
Reaction score
12,213
Location
Lawn Guyland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I've always believed that you should always vote and when confronted by names that I don't recognize on the ballot, I usually pick a mix of democrats and republicans. I figure if I pick of 2 democrats and 2 republicans out of 9 family court judge candidates they balance each other out.

I read a fairly convincing piece this morning in the Washington Post that makes the claim that you actually have an obligation to
not vote if ignorant of the issues/candidates. The piece says in part:

Even if you are an unusually well-informed voter, the enormous size, scope, and complexity of modern government ensure that there will be many issues and candidates about which you know very little….

It’s unrealistic to expect that everyone will achieve a high level of knowledge about every race and every initiative. But if you find that you know little or nothing about a particular race or ballot question, you might want to consider simply not voting on it. As political philosopher Jason Brennan argues, voters have a moral duty to be at least reasonably well-informed about the issues they vote on, because the decisions they make affect not just themselves but all of society. John Stuart Mill put it well when he wrote that voting is not just an exercise of personal choice, but rather “the exercise of power over others.” If you can’t exercise that power in at least a minimally responsible manner, maybe you should not do so at all.


(Link to full article: On election day, consider abstaining from ignorant voting - The Washington Post )

So do you vote even if you're not informed?
 
So do you vote even if you're not informed?

I did this in 1992 and I will never do it again. I felt really bad that I had not kept up with anything and voted even though I didn't know the issues.

I think it is very important to know the issues and at least have a pro and con for each choice to be able to weigh with.
 
So do you vote even if you're not informed?
I've never gone in to voting booth without some decent idea about the people I would be voting for.

I don't like the idea of suggesting anyone chooses not to vote but I can see where it could be the least worst option. I agree that there is a responsibility to know who/what you're voting for and "ignorant voting" can be damaging. I think we also have a responsibility to be involved in the political process though and I don't see why the average person shouldn't be able to gain that basic knowledge, though I think there are things which can be done to help.

For example, in a number of the local elections here, we get an independently produced booklet in the post which has a page for each candidate standing to introduce themselves and lay out their policies. There is a lot of the usual political spin of course but it at least means everyone should know who all the candidates are (which can also help provide balance for the independents and minor parties who get little or no media attention).
 
I've always believed that you should always vote and when confronted by names that I don't recognize on the ballot, I usually pick a mix of democrats and republicans. I figure if I pick of 2 democrats and 2 republicans out of 9 family court judge candidates they balance each other out.

I read a fairly convincing piece this morning in the Washington Post that makes the claim that you actually have an obligation to
not vote if ignorant of the issues/candidates. The piece says in part:

Even if you are an unusually well-informed voter, the enormous size, scope, and complexity of modern government ensure that there will be many issues and candidates about which you know very little….

It’s unrealistic to expect that everyone will achieve a high level of knowledge about every race and every initiative. But if you find that you know little or nothing about a particular race or ballot question, you might want to consider simply not voting on it. As political philosopher Jason Brennan argues, voters have a moral duty to be at least reasonably well-informed about the issues they vote on, because the decisions they make affect not just themselves but all of society. John Stuart Mill put it well when he wrote that voting is not just an exercise of personal choice, but rather “the exercise of power over others.” If you can’t exercise that power in at least a minimally responsible manner, maybe you should not do so at all.


(Link to full article: On election day, consider abstaining from ignorant voting - The Washington Post )

So do you vote even if you're not informed?

I don't vote on issues I'm unable to inform myself about. Usually this means I don't vote on a few local issues, since it's the most difficult to find information on those.
 
I've always believed that you should always vote and when confronted by names that I don't recognize on the ballot, I usually pick a mix of democrats and republicans. I figure if I pick of 2 democrats and 2 republicans out of 9 family court judge candidates they balance each other out.

I read a fairly convincing piece this morning in the Washington Post that makes the claim that you actually have an obligation to
not vote if ignorant of the issues/candidates. The piece says in part:

Even if you are an unusually well-informed voter, the enormous size, scope, and complexity of modern government ensure that there will be many issues and candidates about which you know very little….

It’s unrealistic to expect that everyone will achieve a high level of knowledge about every race and every initiative. But if you find that you know little or nothing about a particular race or ballot question, you might want to consider simply not voting on it. As political philosopher Jason Brennan argues, voters have a moral duty to be at least reasonably well-informed about the issues they vote on, because the decisions they make affect not just themselves but all of society. John Stuart Mill put it well when he wrote that voting is not just an exercise of personal choice, but rather “the exercise of power over others.” If you can’t exercise that power in at least a minimally responsible manner, maybe you should not do so at all.


(Link to full article: On election day, consider abstaining from ignorant voting - The Washington Post )

So do you vote even if you're not informed?



I do the best that I can and I vote in every election.

If nobody voted except those who have the time to be very well informed on every issue and candidate, who would be running the USA?
 
I have no problem leaving portions of the ballot blank (and have often done so). I have no idea who would make the best State Agricultural Commissioner, for example.
 
I do the best that I can and I vote in every election.

If nobody voted except those who have the time to be very well informed on every issue and candidate, who would be running the USA?

I think the point the author was making wasn't to abstain from voting completely but rather to abstain from casting a ballot only on those issues/races that you're not informed on. In my case I know nothing about our family court judge candidates other than perhaps meeting one at the commuter rail station or a supermarket around election day. What basis do I really have to make an informed choice. Their party affiliation isn't nearly enough. So perhaps I should not cast a ballot in that race but still vote in the gubernatorial and assembly races since I am informed on those.

In a perfect world that would leave only people who actually are informed to vote in a given race and presumably they'd be making a more rational decision than you could.
 
I've always believed that you should always vote and when confronted by names that I don't recognize on the ballot, I usually pick a mix of democrats and republicans. I figure if I pick of 2 democrats and 2 republicans out of 9 family court judge candidates they balance each other out.

I read a fairly convincing piece this morning in the Washington Post that makes the claim that you actually have an obligation to
not vote if ignorant of the issues/candidates. The piece says in part:

Even if you are an unusually well-informed voter, the enormous size, scope, and complexity of modern government ensure that there will be many issues and candidates about which you know very little….

It’s unrealistic to expect that everyone will achieve a high level of knowledge about every race and every initiative. But if you find that you know little or nothing about a particular race or ballot question, you might want to consider simply not voting on it. As political philosopher Jason Brennan argues, voters have a moral duty to be at least reasonably well-informed about the issues they vote on, because the decisions they make affect not just themselves but all of society. John Stuart Mill put it well when he wrote that voting is not just an exercise of personal choice, but rather “the exercise of power over others.” If you can’t exercise that power in at least a minimally responsible manner, maybe you should not do so at all.


(Link to full article: On election day, consider abstaining from ignorant voting - The Washington Post )

So do you vote even if you're not informed?

People who don't learn always have stumped me.

Is it really that hard to research before going to vote?

Most states /counties these days have websites that cover who is running and so forth. People know way ahead of time who will be on the ballot. There's no excuse, in my opinion, for being uniformed and still deciding to go to the voting booth. Might as well not vote - not like someone who doesn't do research actually gives a **** about who runs and what they're doing in office. "Oh . . . gee. . . is Obama President? I wish I could remember if I voted for him or not." [:rolleyes:]
 
I recently moved to another state and did not inform myself of the local races or state races prior to yesterday. Honestly I have been too busy getting settled in. I did not vote yesterday because of this. I didn't feel it was right to do so being uninformed of the candidates. It is the first time I have not voted in election in I don't know how long. Too each their own but it's how I feel.
 
People who don't learn always have stumped me.

Is it really that hard to research before going to vote?

Most states /counties these days have websites that cover who is running and so forth. People know way ahead of time who will be on the ballot. There's no excuse, in my opinion, for being uniformed and still deciding to go to the voting booth. Might as well not vote - not like someone who doesn't do research actually gives a **** about who runs and what they're doing in office.
"Oh . . . gee. . . is Obama President? I wish I could remember if I voted for him or not."
[:rolleyes:]



Half of the voters are dumber than the other half.

Who put all of those people in Washington who can't pour urine out of a boot with the instructions on the sole? :roll:
 
The idea that leaving some positions/issues up to others will mean that "more informed" voters will make the "correct" decision ignores the prevalence of straight ticket voters and increases greatly the chance that ballot initiatives will pass simply because they are likely to have "more informed" folks that support them. My "rule of thumb" in these situations is to vote to keep the incumbent (regardless of party affiliation) unless I am aware of a problem within that area/position of gov't, and to vote against added borrowing or freedom restricting ballot initiatives. In other words, when in doubt throw bums out and try to keep borrowing and the scope of gov't to a minimum.
 
People who don't learn always have stumped me.

Is it really that hard to research before going to vote?

Most states /counties these days have websites that cover who is running and so forth. People know way ahead of time who will be on the ballot. There's no excuse, in my opinion, for being uniformed and still deciding to go to the voting booth. Might as well not vote - not like someone who doesn't do research actually gives a **** about who runs and what they're doing in office. "Oh . . . gee. . . is Obama President? I wish I could remember if I voted for him or not." [:rolleyes:]

Most websites simply do spin jobs. To really understand a candidate you'd need to look indepth at their voting record or positions. Information you're not likely to get at the candidate's or partisan websites. Really researching candidates in 20 different local races is probably a work week's worth of time. Not saying that it isn't worth doing - it is - but a lot of people may not have the time.
 
At the very least, if you're unhappy with how things are, vote out the incumbent.

If you're happy, still vote out the incumbent. ;)
 
Really researching candidates in 20 different local races is probably a work week's worth of time.
Dare I suggest that's part of the problem? It might explain why so much seems to go down blind party lines.

I am curious what all those different races would be. Where I am I can only think of half a dozen directly elected representatives in total!
 
I've always believed that you should always vote and when confronted by names that I don't recognize on the ballot, I usually pick a mix of democrats and republicans. I figure if I pick of 2 democrats and 2 republicans out of 9 family court judge candidates they balance each other out.

I read a fairly convincing piece this morning in the Washington Post that makes the claim that you actually have an obligation to
not vote if ignorant of the issues/candidates. The piece says in part:

Even if you are an unusually well-informed voter, the enormous size, scope, and complexity of modern government ensure that there will be many issues and candidates about which you know very little….

It’s unrealistic to expect that everyone will achieve a high level of knowledge about every race and every initiative. But if you find that you know little or nothing about a particular race or ballot question, you might want to consider simply not voting on it. As political philosopher Jason Brennan argues, voters have a moral duty to be at least reasonably well-informed about the issues they vote on, because the decisions they make affect not just themselves but all of society. John Stuart Mill put it well when he wrote that voting is not just an exercise of personal choice, but rather “the exercise of power over others.” If you can’t exercise that power in at least a minimally responsible manner, maybe you should not do so at all.


(Link to full article: On election day, consider abstaining from ignorant voting - The Washington Post )

So do you vote even if you're not informed?

Anyone who is qualified should cast their vote regardless of what others might think of their abilities on issues or candidtes.
 
Most websites simply do spin jobs. To really understand a candidate you'd need to look indepth at their voting record or positions. Information you're not likely to get at the candidate's or partisan websites. Really researching candidates in 20 different local races is probably a work week's worth of time. Not saying that it isn't worth doing - it is - but a lot of people may not have the time.

Government websites just list who and what will be on the ballot - explaining measures as needed - without giving any opinion or otherwise. Then research those names.

And if people don't have time to research candidates then certainly they shouldn't vote and try to involve themselves in politics - leave it for others who care.
 
Dare I suggest that's part of the problem? It might explain why so much seems to go down blind party lines.

I am curious what all those different races would be. Where I am I can only think of half a dozen directly elected representatives in total!


Sure. This is for my town:

Governor
Lt. Governor
Comptroller
State Attorney General
U.S. Representative
NY State Senator
NY State Assemblyman
6 NYS Supreme Court Justices
Suffolk County Clerk
Suffolk Country Controller
2 Suffolk County Court Judges
Suffolk Country Family Court Judge
3 Huntington Town District Court Judges

State Referenda



Proposal #1
Proposal #2
Proposal #3

16 races in total with 24 selections to be made. If you researched every candidate on the ballot that would be 48 individuals plus the 3 referenda.
 
At the very least, if you're unhappy with how things are, vote out the incumbent.

If you're happy, still vote out the incumbent. ;)

In the previous general - there were 291 seats up for grabs. ONLY 2 seats changed. What does that tell ya? Informed voters? Do most voters actually vote self-interest? I think not. I think that a lot voters think that they are voting self-interest, but really don't have a clue about who they help put in office. I think more often than not most voters will strictly vote based on a candidate's party affiliation rather than what they know about individual candidates.

Status quo is really comfy with most voters. And when we see a shift in the majority it's usually pretty marginal. I can't ever recall in my lifetime where there was a Super-Mundo, outrageous turnover in either chamber (or both).

Politicians know the voter's behaviors wayyyyyyyyyyyyyy better than the voters themselves. That's why they have a "Meh!" attitude.

So the ping pong game continues on.
 
I wonder if ballots were forced to leave out party affiliation, how votes would turn out. That way... you have to at least know their name lol.

I usually only pay attention to the governor and senate candidates with rigor. I vote democrat or libertarian on Attorney generals, because I wouldn't want a socially conservative person there. The rest I vote libertarian and if there isn't that option, republicans/woman/people with foreign names/non-incumbents.
 
Another GOP thread continuing their voter suppression techniques.
The 2016 election has obviously started.
McConnell is now speaking--he is a masterful politician and probably one of the better GOPs right now--as hard as that is for me to say .
 
Like some others in this thread, I always do as much research as I can ahead of time and base my decisions on that. For candidates, I pay the most attention to their statements. For state and local measures, I rely mostly on ballotpedia.
 
Another GOP thread continuing their voter suppression techniques.
The 2016 election has obviously started.
McConnell is now speaking--he is a masterful politician and probably one of the better GOPs right now--as hard as that is for me to say .

Nonsense.
 
I can imagine this issue getting worse, not better, with the growing prevalence of mail-in ballots.

It's the only option in my county.

At least if someone takes the time & effort to go to a polling place, I'd guess most informed themselves on at least some of the issues/candidates.

With mail-ins, sit on your couch, fill in the dots, and mail. Little to no effort required....so perhaps less investment?
 
I've always believed that you should always vote and when confronted by names that I don't recognize on the ballot, I usually pick a mix of democrats and republicans. I figure if I pick of 2 democrats and 2 republicans out of 9 family court judge candidates they balance each other out.

I read a fairly convincing piece this morning in the Washington Post that makes the claim that you actually have an obligation to
not vote if ignorant of the issues/candidates. The piece says in part:

Even if you are an unusually well-informed voter, the enormous size, scope, and complexity of modern government ensure that there will be many issues and candidates about which you know very little….

It’s unrealistic to expect that everyone will achieve a high level of knowledge about every race and every initiative. But if you find that you know little or nothing about a particular race or ballot question, you might want to consider simply not voting on it. As political philosopher Jason Brennan argues, voters have a moral duty to be at least reasonably well-informed about the issues they vote on, because the decisions they make affect not just themselves but all of society. John Stuart Mill put it well when he wrote that voting is not just an exercise of personal choice, but rather “the exercise of power over others.” If you can’t exercise that power in at least a minimally responsible manner, maybe you should not do so at all.


(Link to full article: On election day, consider abstaining from ignorant voting - The Washington Post )

So do you vote even if you're not informed?

I vote on everything...but I am never not informed on what I'm voting on. That is not to say that I have expert knowledge about everything I vote on...but I have enough knowledge to make a voting decision that I am satisfied with.

But, your thread title refers to an issue that is not reflected by your poll. That is the issue of...what do I think OTHER people should do. I don't care. I do what I think I should do...others are free to do what they think they should do. I think that's a good attitude. If more people stopped trying to tell other people what they should do and just worried about what they, personally, are doing we would be a whole lot better off as a society.
 
I vote on everything...but I am never not informed on what I'm voting on. That is not to say that I have expert knowledge about everything I vote on...but I have enough knowledge to make a voting decision that I am satisfied with.

But, your thread title refers to an issue that is not reflected by your poll. That is the issue of...what do I think OTHER people should do. I don't care. I do what I think I should do...others are free to do what they think they should do. I think that's a good attitude. If more people stopped trying to tell other people what they should do and just worried about what they, personally, are doing we would be a whole lot better off as a society.

hmmm......I intended to ask what you would do not what you think others should do. If the wording doesn't reflect that you have my apologies and clarification.
 
Back
Top Bottom