Should We Really Encourage Everyone To Vote?

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Or you have an ideology that's just really poorly represented by the parties that make the ballot in your state.

Hush, the OP cannot fathom the all-so blasphemous notion that maybe all the parties on your ballot suck (in accordance with your views) and are not worth a vote from you.

There's certain to be one that sucks just marginally less than the others, even if they all suck. Sometimes it's not a matter of them being "worthy" of your vote. Sometimes it's just a matter of slowing the rush towards Armageddon (or increasing the pace if that's your thing, but I REALLY don't want someone with that goal voting).

[USS Monitor]

The status quo won't change overnight. But if you want the third party to win then shouldn't you vote anyway? True the likelihood of them winning is improbable, but do you really think it's best for folks who don't see a way out to just roll over and die so to speak?

Voting for third parties isn't going to change the status quo. It will be through long periods of time, changing political and social trends, and changes in major political realignment that a third party will have a chance at winning.

This can only happen through time. You could perhaps speed it up slightly by going out and campaigning for third parties, telling the people about why the two major parties suck and third party X is the best. That will change things. But just going out once every 4 years to vote for a third party candidate and then never really talking about it again until next election is pretty much the same as not voting at all. It doesn't matter if you don't vote or if you vote third party.

The act of the vote does not matter right now. The act of spreading awareness about better alternatives, and the act of allowing time to slowly erode the ruling two parties is of utmost importance.

Just stop complaining and vote Libertarian. If you don't think it makes a difference anyway, then you shouldn't have a problem doing it.

[Pandeeria]

Voting for third parties isn't going to change the status quo. It will be through long periods of time, changing political and social trends, and changes in major political realignment that a third party will have a chance at winning.

This can only happen through time. You could perhaps speed it up slightly by going out and campaigning for third parties, telling the people about why the two major parties suck and third party X is the best. That will change things. But just going out once every 4 years to vote for a third party candidate and then never really talking about it again until next election is pretty much the same as not voting at all. It doesn't matter if you don't vote or if you vote third party.

The act of the vote does not matter right now. The act of spreading awareness about better alternatives, and the act of allowing time to slowly erode the ruling two parties is of utmost importance.

Just stop complaining and vote Libertarian. If you don't think it makes a difference anyway, then you shouldn't have a problem doing it.

The Libertarian Party? No thanks.

But you are right. As it doesn't matter, I could vote and have no consequence anyways, as I believe it doesn't matter. But I'd rather save myself the time. Though it's kinda silly to just say "stop complaining" when many political changes and reform happen because people complain about how things are.

[USS Monitor]

Or you have an ideology that's just really poorly represented by the parties that make the ballot in your state.

At which point you can take a look at what's available, and decide which one is least intolerable.

Sometimes it takes some prodding to get people to do that, if the candidates are just really uninspiring.

[Risottia]

However--and this is a big however--I really don't think that those who are politically apathetic should vote. If someone can't be bothered to keep up with world events, or thinks that all politicians are the same, or has no understanding of economics whatsoever, then I don't want that person within a mile of a voting booth.

This, so much this, I want to be your ballot box and I want you to be my voter, give it to me baby, NNNNNNYYYYYEEEESSSSSS!

...

The ballot paper, of course. What were you thinking, you perverts?

[Forsher]

Firstly, the US is whack. National, for instance, steals policies from both Labour and the Greens, Maori has been an ally of all three, ACT's charter school policy (and therefore the implementation) only exists because National wants it and I am sure I can point out more reasons to believe that parties aren't diametrically opposed.

Secondly, I have just recently broadly talked about why higher turnouts are better in a critique of direct democracy... i.e. mandate. The concerns about the poorly educated (perhaps, the ill-informed is a better phrasing) or disinterested naturally increase with "increasing" democracy* and that is a valid concern (one wants things to happen based on reason rather than tax cuts). To an extent education can correct this. To an extent one need not worry too much with a strong civil service. To an extent the issue revolves more around whether or not the options presented are reasonable (which brings us back to "the US is whack")... and when we look at Australia we see information overload is also part of this question. To an extent, there's the ability of the educated to respond to stupid electorates (e.g. citizen's initiated referenda are obviously not going to represent the views of the disinterested).

Basically, mandate is the fundamental premise of modern democracy, and therefore its pursuit is the central question of electoral policy/reform.

*Even though, clearly, I dispute the idea that direct democracy is democratic (lacks mandate), you get the idea.

[Frank Zipper]

Yes we should. Well informed, intelligent people make bad political choices just the same as stupid, uninformed people. Those bad choices are less likely to end up getting elected as the number of people voting increases.

[Uxupox]

Two shits candidates one an insider threat and the other an idiot. Not gonna waste my day off on this shit.

[Darjihad]

Only people that pay income taxes should get to vote.

[Mike the Progressive]

Yes, we should. Personally I'm of the opinion that people should be fined for not voting. Whether it's good or not that certain people can be bothered to come out and vote is irrelevant. Democracy requires a relatively active electorate.

[Mike the Progressive]

The ballot paper, of course. What were you thinking, you perverts?

That the stereotype of Italians are perpetuated through this post.

[The first Galactic Republic]

You know I think the message could be interpreted as on the fence moderate voters stay home, only those who really care should go vote.

Which in practice would mean those who have been hoarding guns for a race war or for when Obama declares himself the Sun King or something would become a more disproportionate chunk of the voting population.

[Senkaku]

You know I think the message could be interpreted as on the fence moderate voters stay home, only those who really care should go vote.

Which in practice would mean those who have been hoarding guns for a race war or for when Obama declares himself the Sun King or something would become a more disproportionate chunk of the voting population.

But so would the Acolytes of His Radiance the Sun King.

[San Lumen]

Yes we absolutely should. If you don't vote you have no right to complain about the government or who gets elected. If you don't like whose running then run for office yourself.

[Conserative Morality]

I think everyone should be encouraged to be a good citizen in general. That includes, but is not limited to, voting.

[Novus America]

In th US I don't see the point in voting. All it is is two shitty, lying, corporate representatives. One is from the Republican Party and the other is from the Democraic Party.

I only get two choices, my vote is statistically insignificant, and nothing will change. I do not see the point of voting.

Umm president is not the only office on the ballot... Your vote definitely matters at the local level, which is more important to your daily life anyways.

[Socialist Tera]

I prefer compulsory voting even though I whinge about it. It represents the population more.

[San Lumen]

I prefer compulsory voting even though I whinge about it. It represents the population more.

I disagree with compulsory voting. if someone doesn't want to vote they should not be forced but you then lose the right too complain about whose in office and what the government does.

[Socialist Tera]

I prefer compulsory voting even though I whinge about it. It represents the population more.

I disagree with compulsory voting. if someone doesn't want to vote they should not be forced but you then lose the right too complain about whose in office and what the government does.

Then only the really political people vote and it misrepresents the population. Also, what happens if you hate both choices and you don't want to vote for them then you don't loose the right to complain, lucky in Australia we have multiple parties.

[Conserative Morality]

Then only the really political people vote and it misrepresents the population.

No, it represents the population perfectly, actually.

[Novus America]

Yes, we should. Personally I'm of the opinion that people should be fined for not voting. Whether it's good or not that certain people can be bothered to come out and vote is irrelevant. Democracy requires a relatively active electorate.

Forcing people to vote does not make them active. They will very likely just click random people, vote blindly just for one party, or write in "Deez nuts" or something. Forcing people to vote just encourages bad behavior. Especially in the US when you make people do something they will likely just engage in deliberately screwing around.

So I think we should not force people to vote. Just inform them, give them fair access, and let them decide.

The problem is not voting participation. The problem is people not participating in actually learning the issues. And you cannot force people to be politically informed.

[Socialist Tera]

Yes, we should. Personally I'm of the opinion that people should be fined for not voting. Whether it's good or not that certain people can be bothered to come out and vote is irrelevant. Democracy requires a relatively active electorate.

Forcing people to vote does not make them active. They will very likely just click random people, vote blindly just for one party, or write in "Deez nuts" or something. Forcing people to vote just encourages bad behavior. Especially in the US when you make people do something they will likely just engage in deliberately screwing around.

So I think we should not force people to vote. Just inform them, give them fair access, and let them decide.

The problem is not voting participation. The problem is people not participating in actually learning the issues. And you cannot force people to be politically informed.

In Australia we do have some donkey voters around 10-25% but most people actually take time to decide what they vote for.

[Novus America]

I disagree with compulsory voting. if someone doesn't want to vote they should not be forced but you then lose the right too complain about whose in office and what the government does.

Then only the really political people vote and it misrepresents the population. Also, what happens if you hate both choices and you don't want to vote for them then you don't loose the right to complain, lucky in Australia we have multiple parties.

Not really. It just gets angry people voting uninformed or spoiling their ballots.

[Suicune]

Yes. Encourage them with a fine.

[Kanaria]

Yes, we in fact should. It is a horrible flaw in our system that the I'll-informed are able to sway elections but to exclude some from the process causes problems; (1). They'll feel disenfranchised by the Government (even if you don't deprive them of their right to vote, they still will feel disenfranchised); and (2). It won't be representative of the population.

I think these are key reasons for voluntary voting as it allows people who wish not to vote, not vote and those who are informed, to vote. As opposed to compulsory voting, which makes everyone vote, giving the I'll-informed maximised ability to sway the vote.

No worse than a bunch of quasi-Nazis dominating the electorate.
Not saying they do so in any English-speaking countries, though.

Yes. Encourage them with a fine.

Especially if they put smilies on the damn ballot.