• 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
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.

Fair enough. And I'm willing to leave room for these exceptional Americans.

If they develop a new school of thought in psychology, or if they found a multibillion dollar, multinational business, or if they're celebrated far and wide for their exceptionally selfless volunteerism and/or efforts to create social harmony and justice, then sign them up to vote, by God!!!

But let's not pretend that these people are anything other than some very, very small minority.

The vast majority of Americans who never get a high school diploma, spend their entire life working menial jobs and renting, and fall completely into the social safety net upon retirement aren't America's best and brightest by ANY means.

They're just a pack of also rans who, in almost all cases, don't even know what Congressional district they live in.

Dollars to donuts people that say this crap are not poor and doesn't even know what its like to be poor.

I was born to an alcoholic father, raised on disability payments and government cheese, and overcame a learning disability to do everything I listed except own a business, which isn't to say I never will.

I'm not privileged, I'm not gifted, and I don't have exceptional talents.

If I can work my way through night school on GI Bill money then so can 85% of the people who fall into the same socioeconomic hole I was born into.

And believe me, I know as well as anyone that it is a deep, dark hole.

But it's not a bottomless pit by any means.

And to preempt any mention of it, yeah, I know that there are people who just don't pack the goods to crawl out of the hole.

I'm sure they're sweet, wonderful people, but we don't need them voting.
 
They're just a pack of also rans who, in almost all cases, don't even know what Congressional district they live in.

I was born to an alcoholic father, raised on disability payments and government cheese, and overcame a learning disability to do everything I listed except own a business, which isn't to say I never will.

I'm not privileged, I'm not gifted, and I don't have exceptional talents.

If I can work my way through night school on GI Bill money then so can 85% of the people who fall into the same socioeconomic hole I was born into.

And believe me, I know as well as anyone that it is a deep, dark hole.

But it's not a bottomless pit by any means.

And to preempt any mention of it, yeah, I know that there are people who just don't pack the goods to crawl out of the hole.

I'm sure they're sweet, wonderful people, but we don't need them voting.

Nice generalization there. I seem to remember my history classes where a group of people were treated in exactly the same way....and I'm not just talking about blacks. Never ended well.
 
I know what I am about to say will be met with disdain.

But most everyone here, both right and left, are interested in, and have studied politics. Otherwise, we wouldn't be here.

It kinda gripes my ass that some person, who hasn't put in a minute of time studying and keeping up with the political landscape, get's to vote and cancel out the vote of someone who has been paying attention. If I had it my way, there would be a 20 question questionnaire a citizen would be required to pass in order to be allowed to vote.

Low information dumb asses screw it up for everybody.

Okay. Fire away y'all. LOL!
 
That's not what I meant. I was talking about only informed voters.

Informed by who and about what though ?

If you look at who funds the campaigns , who presides over the debates , who is included/excluded , the parameters of debate etc etc....." informed " becomes something of a joke imo

In our corporatocracies , plutocracies, polyarchies call it what you will , you will be given the choice between which faction of the business party you can vote for.

If "democracy" ever threatened to become anywhere near meaningful they would just ban it.
 
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.

It's very easy to research who is backing which candidate/measure. The problem is that hardly anyone knows how, much less takes the time to.
 
Informed by who and about what though ?

If you look at who funds the campaigns , who presides over the debates , who is included/excluded , the parameters of debate etc etc....." informed " becomes something of a joke imo

In our corporatocracies , plutocracies, polyarchies call it what you will , you will be given the choice between which faction of the business party you can vote for.

If "democracy" ever threatened to become anywhere near meaningful they would just ban it.

Would you rather citizens toss a coin?
 
For me, the answer is leave people alone. In a participatory democracy, you have the freedom not to participate if you so choose. How valuable or honest is my vote if I can't stand the two people who are opposing each other for an office?

I'm a little more receptive to mandatory voting when it comes to ballot initiatives. I'm much more in favour of legislators making such decisions - they can be recalled or voted out - but if you're going to put the question to the citizens, then there should be a threshold that has to be reached before the vote is valid - let's say 80% or higher for the answer to the question to be binding.
 
It's very easy to research who is backing which candidate/measure. The problem is that hardly anyone knows how, much less takes the time to.

Yes, and often the people buying the elections are three degrees removed of the "organization," or PAC that is footing the bill. My state is bought and paid for by out-of-state interests.
 
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 the idea that if an individual does not want to vote, don't force him. I think if someone wants to vote, he will. I do not think people should go banging on doors and come very close to putting them in handcuffs to get them to the polls. If they think voting is important, they will. If they don't, leave them alone.

What you have in many area are harvesting voters by the parties with their ground game. People who do not have the slightest idea of what or whom they are voting for, voting because someone rousted them out of their home and hustled them off to the polls.

turn out doesn't bother me. Let those who have the gumption vote, those who do not, let them be.
 
Yes, and often the people buying the elections are three degrees removed of the "organization," or PAC that is footing the bill. My state is bought and paid for by out-of-state interests.

I'm just thankful for the various watchdog groups that keep track of such stuff.
 
Would you rather citizens toss a coin?

Yep , at least it is a recognition of the hopelessness of their situation in the current scheme of things. Tails you lose , heads I win
 
It's a bad thing for the losing Party, but I don't think it's necessarily an indictment upon the quality of the country itself.
 
I think people should become informed and then vote accordingly.

However, I don't think making voting mandatory is the answer.

I don't know the answer, but mandatory isn't it.
 
Is not voting... aka "low voter turnout"... a bad thing?

yes. people should take the initiative to research the candidates and vote.

edit to add : part of the apathy is due to our monochromatic duopoly. many think that their vote won't change anything, so they don't care. we need to end gerrymandering, which helps to keep the duopoly in place.
 
Informed by who and about what though ?

If you look at who funds the campaigns , who presides over the debates , who is included/excluded , the parameters of debate etc etc....." informed " becomes something of a joke imo

In our corporatocracies , plutocracies, polyarchies call it what you will , you will be given the choice between which faction of the business party you can vote for.

If "democracy" ever threatened to become anywhere near meaningful they would just ban it.

I feel similarly. I believe voting is much like pissing in the wind. I believe election outcomes are as much influenced by the establishment as it is by the voting populous. I am also not a believer in the "lesser of two evils" strategy and will not vote unless we have a candidate I fully support. I refuse to put even my almost meaningless vote behind anyone I find questionable. As a result I rarely vote and if they mandated that I do so well It wouldn't do them any good. I would still only vote when I wished to. If that meant a fine or some jail time, so be it. You are not going to make me support anyone that I do not feel deserves my support.
 
I feel similarly. I believe voting is much like pissing in the wind. I believe election outcomes are as much influenced by the establishment as it is by the voting populous. I am also not a believer in the "lesser of two evils" strategy and will not vote unless we have a candidate I fully support. I refuse to put even my almost meaningless vote behind anyone I find questionable. As a result I rarely vote and if they mandated that I do so well It wouldn't do them any good. I would still only vote when I wished to. If that meant a fine or some jail time, so be it. You are not going to make me support anyone that I do not feel deserves my support.

I vote, but whole heartily agree about not voting for the lesser of two evils or the least worst candidate. Even if the least worst candidate wins, you still have a bad winner. I usually vote for a third party candidate in that case. The problem is the Republicans and Democrats have a monopoly on our electoral system. They, the Republicans and Democrats write the election laws and they write them as a mutual protection act. They write them to prevent any viable third party from arising. The whole system is rigged.
 
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.
Part one especially, an uninformed vote cancels out an informed one. I would rather an apathetic voter just stay home.

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.
Agreed. If someone doesn't want to vote it is no one's business but their own. Another point, the assertion by some that people who don't want to vote would do more research is ludicrous. Those that do the bare minimum would do just that for voting if it were mandated.
 
Last edited:
I believe that every citizen should vote, but I respect the right of those who choose not to.

Most non-citizens tend to vote only in our Presidential elections. Like in 2008 and 2012. They sat out the mid terms in 2010 and 2014.

They'll be voting in a vengeance in 2016.
 
Everyone should vote, but "no" mandating them to do so is not the answer. Perhaps there should be more appealing parties than 2 in USA. Other parties that reach out further to the people that do not vote.
 
People fought and died for every citizen's right to vote. Blacks, women, etc. at one time had no voice. They were all rightfully so given the vote generations ago. There was a reason they fought for it, and future generations are not sufficiently taught this history.

That said, hell, it's up to you if you want to vote or not. If you choose not to, we're probably better off if you don't. You don't understand the value of your vote, you probably have no idea who the candidates are, you're probably more in tune with inconsequential things than your freedom and the impact government has on your life, etc. So stay home...fine by me.
 
yes. people should take the initiative to research the candidates and vote.

I seriously wish they would. Then they might realize, once and for all , that the difference between them on many important issues is pretty much zilch. And if it's not , that the process for bringing in change is also hamstringed
 
The whole system is rigged.

Correct, so does giving your vote play a role in legitimizing and continuing what you already know to be " rigged " ?
 
I seriously wish they would. Then they might realize, once and for all , that the difference between them on many important issues is pretty much zilch. And if it's not , that the process for bringing in change is also hamstringed

What does that mean, bringing change? Does that mean electing a president who is not qualified for the job? That's the last change we got.

America is supposed to be a free country, meaning we are free to make choices. To vote or not to vote is a choice. My experience is that there lots of people in the country who don't pay attention to politics and don't care about the process. While unfortunate if they don't chose to participate it's their loss.

Having said that the only reason that we are talking about low turnout is that it's the last refuge of a president who got his clock cleaned in the mid terms. He's made it an issue to try to save face.
 
You can be as informed as the rest. Sometimes you can also be too disillusioned to go to the voting booth. It happens. Just ask me.
 
Low information dumb asses screw it up for everybody.

Okay. Fire away y'all. LOL!

Ok, ready, set, fire. :)
I agree with you, voting should be taken seriously, and it is also our right as a US citizen to vote. No matter what our beliefs, no matter where we obtain our information, no matter how we interpret that information, we have the right to have our vote counted, or to just stay home. We should be proud of that fact, proud that, no matter what our economic status or educational level or color of skin or ethnic background, we, as US citizens, have that right.
 
Back
Top Bottom