• 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!

Is not voting... aka "low voter turnout"... a bad thing?

Is not voting... aka "low voter turnout"... a bad thing?


  • Total voters
    41

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
34,817
Reaction score
18,576
Location
Look to your right... I'm that guy.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Is not voting... aka "low voter turnout"... a bad thing?

To hear so many people tell it, you'd think it is. Some have even used words like "disgrace" to describe American low percentages of participation.

Maybe I'm in the minority, but I simply don't see it that way.

Some countries mandate voting. There seems to be an increasing sentiment in this country to do the same, to mandate voting. One of the claims is that people would be more inclined to research if they knew that had to. I don't buy that. I would be vehemently against that, for two reasons...

1) I don't want the results skewed by people who don't care enough to research, or at least pay attention.

2) The freedom to not do something is just as important, if not more so, than the freedom to have the ability to do something.

IMHO, #2 stands quite well on it's own. And I detest "get out the vote" campaigns due to #1.

What say you?
 
Actually it would be better if only informed people voted, and I don't mean that in a mandatory way.
 
First of all, I wish we lived in a society where people voted on their own accord. I'm only going to tackle point #1 of the OP as I'm still collecting my thoughts on #2.

In my opinion, in order to mandate voting you would have to somehow mandate that people research into the vote. Otherwise people come out of reluctance, scribble whatever on a bit of paper and leave. It actually increases apathy towards the system as people see it as a chore.

I know this sounds ridiculous but just off the top of my head: perhaps there is a way to socially engineer voters to get more information? For example, mandating voting and decreasing the number of voting machines could increase lines and wait times at the voting stations. Put up tv's near the line which have a brief summary of the candidates positions on loop. When people are waiting in line they'll watch anything (case in point: commercials at the dmv).

Of course, the other option to increase the vote is just to make voting easier by increasing access time to stations to a longer period (say a fortnight like in India) or even move it online. However I don't think this solves #1 in the slightest.
 
I think that to abstain from voting is unintelligent, irresponsible and immoral. I understand why some people feel that their vote is powerless. However, I believe that there are more intelligent, responsible and ethical ways to deal with that sentiment than abstention.
 
Is not voting... aka "low voter turnout"... a bad thing?

To hear so many people tell it, you'd think it is. Some have even used words like "disgrace" to describe American low percentages of participation.

Maybe I'm in the minority, but I simply don't see it that way.

Some countries mandate voting. There seems to be an increasing sentiment in this country to do the same, to mandate voting. One of the claims is that people would be more inclined to research if they knew that had to. I don't buy that. I would be vehemently against that, for two reasons...

1) I don't want the results skewed by people who don't care enough to research, or at least pay attention.

2) The freedom to not do something is just as important, if not more so, than the freedom to have the ability to do something.

IMHO, #2 stands quite well on it's own. And I detest "get out the vote" campaigns due to #1.

What say you?




I agree with you entirely.


Those who don't care, or can't be bothered with it, don't need to vote. We're probably better off if they don't.
 
I think the causes of low voter turnout in most Western countries are bad. People tend not to vote because they don't see any connection between what elected officials do and their own day-to-day lives, indeed, they don't tend to see what elected officials do at all. In a related issue, they mostly only see the low politics, spin and misinformation which might work for a short while but eventually end up putting most people off.

Getting more people to vote without solving the problems of the general public ignorance of what government actually does (including all it does wrong) and cleaning up the mess that is the political system (as distinct from the governmental one) is pointless. Improve those things though, and more people would naturally want to vote in the first place.

How to do that is a much more complex question. :(
 
Is not voting... aka "low voter turnout"... a bad thing?

To hear so many people tell it, you'd think it is. Some have even used words like "disgrace" to describe American low percentages of participation.

Maybe I'm in the minority, but I simply don't see it that way.

Some countries mandate voting. There seems to be an increasing sentiment in this country to do the same, to mandate voting. One of the claims is that people would be more inclined to research if they knew that had to. I don't buy that. I would be vehemently against that, for two reasons...

1) I don't want the results skewed by people who don't care enough to research, or at least pay attention.

2) The freedom to not do something is just as important, if not more so, than the freedom to have the ability to do something.

IMHO, #2 stands quite well on it's own. And I detest "get out the vote" campaigns due to #1.

What say you?

I'm not for mandatory voting at all for the two reasons mentioned so I do agree with you there. And I definitely don't think that people should vote if they do not care enough to at least attempt to become informed. Still, I do think its a bad thing that more of our country does not attempt to inform themselves and vote, and that its a bad thing that so few people here are politically active and aware.
 
In Sweden we have an election rate of around 80 % during the national election but less then 50 % vote in the election to the EU parliament. So how many people that vote can be based on the trust and knowledge in the politcal system. That you can maybee see it as a vicious circle. That people distrust EU and EU politics and doesn't care about it, therefor it's not profitable for news media to run segments on EU politics, leading to voters get more uninformed and also it can be more easy for EU politicans and lobbyist to get a way with bad things, leading to more distrust and apathy towards EU. Even if EU politician can have a lot of influence on our daily life just like national politics.
 
Is not voting... aka "low voter turnout"... a bad thing?

To hear so many people tell it, you'd think it is. Some have even used words like "disgrace" to describe American low percentages of participation.

Maybe I'm in the minority, but I simply don't see it that way.

Some countries mandate voting. There seems to be an increasing sentiment in this country to do the same, to mandate voting. One of the claims is that people would be more inclined to research if they knew that had to. I don't buy that. I would be vehemently against that, for two reasons...

1) I don't want the results skewed by people who don't care enough to research, or at least pay attention.

2) The freedom to not do something is just as important, if not more so, than the freedom to have the ability to do something.

IMHO, #2 stands quite well on it's own. And I detest "get out the vote" campaigns due to #1.

What say you?

It is not a bad thing if people who could care less are not voting. I agree with you.If people do not care enough to research and pay attention to what our elected officials are doing then they should not vote nor should they be forced to vote.
 
It is a bad thing and needs to be rectified.

People just bitch and bitch, but then don't vote. A better push for participation and education on the issues/candidates would be a good direction to take.

Still, I get a bit pissy when I hear anyone propose compulsory voting in this country, just sickening to me. People have as much right to not vote as they do to vote. Pretty sure that would be unconstitutional, so nothing to worry about there.
 
Actually it would be better if only informed people voted, and I don't mean that in a mandatory way.

It would be better if money was out of politics, then people were informed. Otherwise you get people who think they've been informed, but are actually hoodwinked into voting against their own interests.
 
I think it should be mandatory for any US citizen between 18 and 65.

That's not what I meant. I was talking about only informed voters.
 
In theory low voter turnout should lead us to a technocracy, in practice it's shifting us towards hardliners.
 
Voted "Other".

I think universal suffrage is ridiculous.

I believe that there should be age (older than 18 for most people), education, property ownership (home and or business), and military service requirements to voting.

Not necessarily all of them for everyone, but some mix of the above.

I'm fine with an 18-year-old in the military voting, and I'm okay with a 40-year-old voting even though he may never have been in the military so long as he has a college education and owns his own home, or maybe no college education but owns a home and business, or, you get the idea.

But allowing every idiot with a GED and a FOX News addiction to vote is crazy, as is allowing folks who have been receiving welfare generationally since we became the "Great Society" that we are.
 
Voted "Other".

I think universal suffrage is ridiculous.

I believe that there should be age (older than 18 for most people), education, property ownership (home and or business), and military service requirements to voting.

Not necessarily all of them for everyone, but some mix of the above.

I'm fine with an 18-year-old in the military voting, and I'm okay with a 40-year-old voting even though he may never have been in the military so long as he has a college education and owns his own home, or maybe no college education but owns a home and business, or, you get the idea.

But allowing every idiot with a GED and a FOX News addiction to vote is crazy, as is allowing folks who have been receiving welfare generationally since we became the "Great Society" that we are.
How about the person who has a very successful career, pays a boat load of taxes, but doesn't own a home because it's not practical with all their traveling?
 
Is not voting... aka "low voter turnout"... a bad thing?

To hear so many people tell it, you'd think it is. Some have even used words like "disgrace" to describe American low percentages of participation.

Maybe I'm in the minority, but I simply don't see it that way.

Some countries mandate voting. There seems to be an increasing sentiment in this country to do the same, to mandate voting. One of the claims is that people would be more inclined to research if they knew that had to. I don't buy that. I would be vehemently against that, for two reasons...

1) I don't want the results skewed by people who don't care enough to research, or at least pay attention.

2) The freedom to not do something is just as important, if not more so, than the freedom to have the ability to do something.

IMHO, #2 stands quite well on it's own. And I detest "get out the vote" campaigns due to #1.

What say you?

I think that low turnout is bad because it impedes upon the legitimacy of those elected. If turnout is 50% and someone gets 51% of that, it's only a little more than 1/4.
 
Is not voting... aka "low voter turnout"... a bad thing?

To hear so many people tell it, you'd think it is. Some have even used words like "disgrace" to describe American low percentages of participation.

Maybe I'm in the minority, but I simply don't see it that way.

Some countries mandate voting. There seems to be an increasing sentiment in this country to do the same, to mandate voting. One of the claims is that people would be more inclined to research if they knew that had to. I don't buy that. I would be vehemently against that, for two reasons...

1) I don't want the results skewed by people who don't care enough to research, or at least pay attention.

2) The freedom to not do something is just as important, if not more so, than the freedom to have the ability to do something.

IMHO, #2 stands quite well on it's own. And I detest "get out the vote" campaigns due to #1.

What say you?

I chose "other." When "none of the above" is the last line on all voting machines, that will represent real progress.
 
How about the person who has a very successful career, pays a boat load of taxes, but doesn't own a home because it's not practical with all their traveling?

That depends, is this person a Democrat or a Republican?

We all know that's what really matters.
 
I chose "other." When "none of the above" is the last line on all voting machines, that will represent real progress.
"None of the above" is emotionally satisfying, but I think it carries with it two huge negative consequences.

1) Many people would choose it just to be jerks.

2) Leaving offices vacant would not serve us well, and would magnify the power of those people and/or parties who do get in.


That depends, is this person a Democrat or a Republican?

We all know that's what really matters.
Yes. Yes, we do.
 
How about the person who has a very successful career, pays a boat load of taxes, but doesn't own a home because it's not practical with all their traveling?

I don't know.

I'd have to give a little more thought to what we'd do with the two of them...
 
"None of the above" is emotionally satisfying, but I think it carries with it two huge negative consequences.

1) Many people would choose it just to be jerks.

:shrug: People are allowed to be and still can be with the current system so this wouldn't matter in the slightest.

2) Leaving offices vacant would not serve us well, and would magnify the power of those people and/or parties who do get in.

So hold another election with someone other than those that are running. ;) This way people will actually get who they want instead of the same ole' same ole'. It would probably even encourage politicians to be more honest with those that they are supposed to represent.
 
Voted "Other".

I think universal suffrage is ridiculous.

I believe that there should be age (older than 18 for most people), education, property ownership (home and or business), and military service requirements to voting.

Not necessarily all of them for everyone, but some mix of the above.

I'm fine with an 18-year-old in the military voting, and I'm okay with a 40-year-old voting even though he may never have been in the military so long as he has a college education and owns his own home, or maybe no college education but owns a home and business, or, you get the idea.

But allowing every idiot with a GED and a FOX News addiction to vote is crazy, as is allowing folks who have been receiving welfare generationally since we became the "Great Society" that we are.

Ironically some of the greatest people that this country has had barely had a high school diploma. A piece of paper from some college doesn't make one unqualified for voting. Neither does owning a piece of land.

Dollars to donuts people that say this crap are not poor and doesn't even know what its like to be poor.
 
Truth be known, in national and high level state elections, it really doesn't matter. Either way, we're screwed. The big money buys and forms our opinion's anyways. We don't really have a clue as to who we are actually voting for. They are all a product of publicity firms and marketing experts.

Voting is just a "feel good," exercise to make us believe that we actually have a say in things that are going on. At the end of the day, it's all about who is going to serve the big money the most. It has been determined, and the numbers are indisputable, we are no longer a democracy. But as long as the powers that be can make us feel like we are, there is peace in the valley.
 
Back
Top Bottom