• 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
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.

I'm not going to get into partisan debates concerning the Republican and Democrat parties. It is precisely this sort of tribalism that stops many people from seeing that the system itself is the problem. And I'm neither a supporter of the Republicans or the Democrats , to me they represent the choice between Cheech and Chong , Tweedledum and Tweedledee
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.

What things are supposed to be and what they are , are often two different things.

Have those that don't vote fared markedly different from those that did ?

Has your participation brought you any gains or losses that are different to those that never voted ?

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.

And if the boot was on the other foot , would a Republican president not be using the same tactic ?
 
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.

This forum is example enough that even 'informed' people can have it so bat**** wrong.
 
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.
Not with the current forecast-ed group of candidates they wont be. I just dont see 'excitement' for the current list of contenders. Even on this site we have people working hard to convince themselves that taking a big ol heaping steamy spoonful of that Clinton **** brownie is OK and a 'good' thing. And some have said outright they will not vote for her. And thats DEMOCRATS. SO...I dont think 2016 will be 'better' with the same crop of politicians. Warren...Booker...I think those are names they will need to get some real excitement going.
 
To add to the OP, the demographics say that it's the older generation that is mostly voting. When they are gone, what will happen? If that is not enough of a fact to make government want to engage youth, I don't know what is. Yet it seems some are more interested in suppressing vote. Pretty sad, don't you think?
 
I believe that every citizen should vote, but I respect the right of those who choose not to.

I echo the above sentiment. Of course, I'll try to convince the individual to vote whether he/she believes his/her vote won't matter much if at all, but I do believe that if you don't exercise your right to vote really don't have a right to complain about the government you get. For, as we're seeing in this mid-term election cycle low voter turnout could be viewed as a deciding factor as to why one candidate won over another. That's not to say that in some tight political races run-off elections don't happen due to low voter turnout for one side of the political divide because it has happened in instances of high voter turnout as well. My point, however, is if you don't vote and government doesn't seem to work for you...well, it's your own damned vault.

Well, that and not being part of a well-informed electorate. :shrug:

That said, I wouldn't mandate voting. It's your right (option) to do so and I'll never be in favor of forcing that on anyone any more than I would be in favor of voter suppression.
 
Last edited:
It really was bad this year.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/12/opinion/the-worst-voter-turnout-in-72-years.html?_r=0

at this rate, 20% of registered voters (which of course is not all of those eligible to vote) are deciding things for all of us. That is not democracy.

That is more than what votes in your typical local elections which involve schools, property taxes, mayors, city councils, law enforcement, local utilities, and pretty much everything else that affects peoples day to day lives.
 
To add to the OP, the demographics say that it's the older generation that is mostly voting. When they are gone, what will happen? If that is not enough of a fact to make government want to engage youth, I don't know what is. Yet it seems some are more interested in suppressing vote. Pretty sad, don't you think?

The GOP would have to run another Bush, or a Cruz or Rand Paul before I would EVER vote for a Keg-Legged Hillary. And even then, I might end up sitting that election out and not voting at all.
 
Correct, so does giving your vote play a role in legitimizing and continuing what you already know to be " rigged " ?

Not the way I look at it. I have been a firm believer this country needs a viable third party for a very long time. That by voting Republican and/or Democrat what you are doing is perpetuating a business as usual system. But by voting for a third party candidate be that Reform, Constitutional, Libertarian, Green, what ever party is on your ballot you are registering you vote against the two parties and for a third party. Sort of putting your money where your mouth is.

I know both major parties has been bought and paid for by corporations, wall street firms, lobbyists, special interests and the like to incude pacs, super pacs and huge money donors. When each party can easily raise a billion dollars each just for a presidential campaign, that confirms it. Those folks I mentioned are good business people, if they didn't get back more than they donated they wouldn't do it. They are not donating out of civic good. They donate so they can get rewarded for their investment in the future.

I am not rich, all I have is my one vote. But I can make sure my one vote is cast against the rigged system.
 
Actually it is. It was 47% in my precinct. We went 54% for D Governor, 54% for R Representative in open seat, 68% for R State Senator and 57% for R State Representative.

You did better than the average! (36.3%)
 
Not the way I look at it. I have been a firm believer this country needs a viable third party for a very long time. That by voting Republican and/or Democrat what you are doing is perpetuating a business as usual system. But by voting for a third party candidate be that Reform, Constitutional, Libertarian, Green, what ever party is on your ballot you are registering you vote against the two parties and for a third party. Sort of putting your money where your mouth is.

I know both major parties has been bought and paid for by corporations, wall street firms, lobbyists, special interests and the like to incude pacs, super pacs and huge money donors. When each party can easily raise a billion dollars each just for a presidential campaign, that confirms it. Those folks I mentioned are good business people, if they didn't get back more than they donated they wouldn't do it. They are not donating out of civic good. They donate so they can get rewarded for their investment in the future.

I am not rich, all I have is my one vote. But I can make sure my one vote is cast against the rigged system.

At least you see it for what it is, and I respect you all the more that
 
Last edited:
I believe that every citizen should vote, but I respect the right of those who choose not to.

Exactly. Seems that the more informed Democrat voter just stayed home this last time around.
 
At least you see it for what it is, and I respect you all the more that

Thank you, I continue to work for a viable third party. The deck is stacked, but I won't give up.
 
I'm not going to get into partisan debates concerning the Republican and Democrat parties. It is precisely this sort of tribalism that stops many people from seeing that the system itself is the problem. And I'm neither a supporter of the Republicans or the Democrats , to me they represent the choice between Cheech and Chong , Tweedledum and Tweedledee


What things are supposed to be and what they are , are often two different things.

Have those that don't vote fared markedly different from those that did ?

Has your participation brought you any gains or losses that are different to those that never voted ?



And if the boot was on the other foot , would a Republican president not be using the same tactic ?

1, You didn't answer the question. What the hell does bringing change mean?

2, Things are as they are supposed to be. We get the government we deserve.

3, You are missing the point. An individual voter can't claim responsibility for what the government does or doesn't do so your question is pointless. I think it would be nice if everyone paid attention and participated. The truth is that more people want to see Kim Kardashian naked than go to the polls. That's ok, the rest of us will do the heavy lifting.

4. No other president, Republican or Democrat has ever has his clock cleaned like in the recent midterm and come out to say that two thirds of the voters who didn't vote would have given him a majority. That's delusional crazy talk. It's certainly beneath a President but I'm not surprised it came from Barry O.
 
1, You didn't answer the question. What the hell does bringing change mean?

It means , to me , a new more inclusive/meaningful political system and new policies that better serve the bulk of the people instead of sustaining a small and rich elites power from which they derive even more wealth and even more power

2, Things are as they are supposed to be. We get the government we deserve.

That's right , if we allow the status quo to continue without a challenge then we surely deserve all we get
3, You are missing the point. An individual voter can't claim responsibility for what the government does or doesn't do so your question is pointless. I think it would be nice if everyone paid attention and participated. The truth is that more people want to see Kim Kardashian naked than go to the polls. That's ok, the rest of us will do the heavy lifting.

I never meant to infer that with my comments. I stated that voting in a rigged system , imo , gives it a legitimacy that it doesn't deserve. At least when it's referred to as a vibrant democracy.

Whilst the politicians and others might bemoan a lack of voter enthusiasm in public , I'm fairly sure that generally speaking and apart from self interest with regards to their personal careers , they privately are thrilled that the WMDs of " popular culture " play such an important role in distracting people away from political activism and inclusion.

An apathetic electorate isn't going to make things difficult for them to maintain their control and profiteering , is it ?

4. No other president, Republican or Democrat has ever has his clock cleaned like in the recent midterm and come out to say that two thirds of the voters who didn't vote would have given him a majority. That's delusional crazy talk. It's certainly beneath a President but I'm not surprised it came from Barry O.

I don't know if that's true or not , I live in the uk.

But making lame excuses for poor performances I would have thought is just common currency regardless of who it is and what their profession is
 
Last edited:
It's bad for those who want "power by the just consent of the governed," in that "none of the above" winning seriously undermines any legit claim to public office, or that office even existing. I've heard that once upon a time, senators were revered instead of reviled. Today's politicians i wouldn't show any special respect for if i met them on the street, that's for sure. I don't consider laws to be valid simply because these dynastic overlords pass them. I definitely feel our democracy has failed, and not just because most of those who do vote are morons.

Back in the super close 2000 election, even most non voters in *florida* stated they *still* would not vote, had they known it would be so close. That pretty well captures the extreme disenchantment with politics today
 
A study by Princeton and Northwestern universities (http://www.princeton.edu/~mgilens/G...ens and Page 2014-Testing Theories 3-7-14.pdf) has shown that the United States operates much more like an oligarchy than the democratic republic it claims to be. An oligarchy is a form of government where the power is held by a select few who, as history has shown us, often protect the interests of those select few. In short, the masses do not have power. An oligarchy is not democratic, and it’s not usually representative of the masses. Right now, that’s our reality. It’s our reality because we allow it to be our reality.

Only 33.9 percent of registered voters (Actual election turnout far lower than reported | Al Jazeera America) turned out to vote during the midterm elections this year. That percentage doesn’t even take into account the 70 million eligible voters who aren’t registered at all. Only 76.9 million voters went to the polls out of over 227.2 million who were eligible to have done so. Considering how many people voted, having 70 million people not even registered is a disaster in a representative democracy.

Now, I won’t wax poetic about the billions of people who dream about having the opportunity to vote in a democracy or the hundreds of thousands who have given their life in hope of securing that very right. I’m only talking about Americans for now, but I haven’t forgotten those countless others.

One of the basic tenets of a democracy is that it is based off the voice of the people. But if the people don’t speak up, we might as well retire that whole “Democratic Republic” part of our country’s name because it’s currently inaccurate. Again, it’s only that way because the non-voters allow it to be.

I’ve seen dozens of posts across social media from non-voters bragging about not voting, punctuating their declarations of non-participation with a fat “LOL.”

These non-voters have a healthy list of reasons why they choose to sit out of politics.

One commonly cited reason is that individual votes don’t count. It is certainly true that very few elections are decided by a single vote margin. But this “my vote doesn’t count” nonsense leaves out two very important things. First, there are 150 million non-voters, many of whom claim that their vote doesn’t count. That’s more than twice the amount of votes cast this season! If all 150 million of the “my vote doesn’t count” non-voters decided to vote, then those votes would most certainly count. Why? Because of the second reason: the politics of the voters and the politics of the non-voters are very different (Nonvoters: Who They Are, What They Think | Pew Research Center for the People and the Press). A Pew Research study found that during the 2012 presidential election, 64 percent of non-voters had a favorable view of Barak Obama while only 32 percent of non-voters had a favorable view of Mitt Romney. Those percentages are very different from the percentages who voted for each candidate.

Another commonly cited reason for being a non-voter is that both the Democratic Party and the Republican party are pretty terrible right now. HuffPost Pollster says that 42.2 percent of Americans view the Democratic Party favorably (Democratic Party Favorable Rating - Polls - HuffPost Pollster) while only 36.2 percent of Americans view the Republican Party favorably (Republican Party Favorable Rating - Polls - HuffPost Pollster). There were an unfortunate number of candidates at every level of government who ran unopposed and even more districts without third-party candidates (https://gist.github.com/alecperkins/59d87df3abb1ae232e4f), but there were still hundreds of third-party candidates on the ballots across the country. Third-party candidates often build their platforms specifically to address issues that neither the Democratic nor the Republican candidates are pushing for. Not many third-party candidates manage to get elected, but if those 150 million non-voters were to rally behind those third-party candidates, they’d surely win.

It’s important to note that election day isn’t just about passing power between different elected officials; important propositions are on the ballots too. The election results on these propositions are often legally binding, meaning if the vote passes, the proposition becomes law. These propositions cover a wide range of subjects that impact the daily lives of the citizens of this country. Propositions on the ballots this time around included the subjects fetal personhood, marijuana decriminalization, reducing prison overcrowding, overhauling political redistricting, increasing minimum wage, and increasing gun control. Non-voters are willingly leaving themselves out of the conversation about these topics by refraining from voting.

The last reason for not voting that I’ve heard too many non-voters give is also the most worrying reason: they’re not informed enough to participate. Many non-voters know that they know very little about the people and issues on the ballot, but they choose to do nothing about it. Some are even proud of their lack of knowledge! As if willingly keeping one’s self uninformed is a new form of protest.

Some would argue that it’s better that uninformed voters stay home, but instead of saying, “If you don’t know, don’t vote,” I’d rather say, “If you don’t know, do some reading.” I am very wary about anyone actively discouraging voting because that goes against the very nature of a democracy. Creating abstract prerequisites for voters, like “minimum political knowledge” requirements, is a very dangerous slippery slope. If we want to have a democracy, we need to accept that its weaknesses are still stronger than the weaknesses of other forms of government, and that means we need to accept that all eligible voters should be able to vote and all eligible voters should feel like they’re worthy of the right to vote.
 
Chantal, that's a great post. Great writeup of why non-voters SHOULD become informed and vote. I hope people read it.

Re their "vote not counting" argument - we had a local race; in the primary, if the winner had gotten 3 more votes, he would have avoided a runoff in Nov. THREE more votes. Instead, he and the runner up "got" to campaign all over again for Nov., costing them time and money. He did win in November; and personally, I think that was an opportunity for the voters to examine the candidates in more depth than they did in the primary, so it's not a bad thing; but he was really grappling with the whole "not voting" thing.... in his case, those votes would certainly have counted!

In my case, I think "if everyone who thinks like me goes to the polls - we'll make a difference. But if I stay home, maybe they will stay home, and then our positions won't be represented in the vote".
 
Back
Top Bottom