Should We Really Encourage Everyone To Vote?

[The Chan Islanders]

Ironically, compulsory voting has shown to force people to get informed, meaning that the countries with the highest voter participation are also the ones seeing the most citizen activism, donations to charity, highest rates of volunteering for parties etc...

[Yumyumsuppertime]

I stated upfront that I didn't believe in excluding anyone from the process. I'm just not inclined to encourage the unmotivated who don't wish to inform themselves on the issues, regardless of party, race, age, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion, or ethnicity.

I understand that, exclusion doesn't mean deprivation, they'll still feel disenfranchised and excluded nonetheless; that causes problems.

If you (Meaning a general "you", not you personally) have a voting booth down the block from you, more than one candidate on the ballot, and either the ability to get yourself down there or a way to vote absentee, and you still feel disenfranchised, then I'm fine with you not voting, because you're unable to reason out that you're absolutely enfranchised.

If your polling places have been shut down, you have to go a few miles to vote, you have to stand in lines that last several hours, or you're otherwise the victim of politicians fucking with your access, and you WANT to vote, though, then raise hell. No get out the vote program will motivate that, though.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

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.

And the fact that you're unable to see otherwise means that I am perfectly happy with you not voting.

[Kaidou]

I don't necessarily think everyone should vote, but we should make a distinction between people that are uninformed and people that are just jaded. There are people that know who the candidates are enough to formulate an opinion, but just feel like their vote doesn't matter. Those people should be prodded to vote so they can have their opinion counted. People that don't even know what's going on may as well stay home.

^

A very succinct way of putting it.

[Valonde]

Yes, I think we should.

I think the problem lies more with the fact far too many people don't understand what voting actually is. What I mean is, so many people say 'my vote won't count'. To these people one little vote is not a game changer. But in reality one vote can actually change the course of history. What we need to do is educate.

Of course, if someone is going to vote whoever just to get it over with, then that person should not be voting.

If someone's reasoning is that their vote won't count, then I find their view on democracy suspect, and I'm just as happy to not see them in the voting booth.

I never thought of it that way.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Ironically, compulsory voting has shown to force people to get informed, meaning that the countries with the highest voter participation are also the ones seeing the most citizen activism, donations to charity, highest rates of volunteering for parties etc...

I'm not actually doubting you, but do you have a source for that?

[Pandeeria]

That's assuming a.) we like any of the choices. and b.) our system in the US wasn't absurd when it comes to elections

If you don't like any of the choices isn't it better to vote for the one that, to you, would do the least damage?

I have no rebuttal for the absurdity of the elections.

The thing with strategic voting (I.E. voting for the least of the two evils) is that it still does damage. You can lessen it perhaps, but ultimately a terrible candidate will still screw things up, and it also perpetuates the current system of two party dominance. Nothing changes.

If you keep voting for the lesser of two evils, you keep voting for one of the two broken parties still in the election. If you vote for a third party, well, you may as well be voting for the tooth fairy as a third candidate will certainly not win an election for the foreseeable future. If you just stay home and not vote, then you don't have any affect, even if said affect would only be negative (like the previous two options). In all situations you lose and the status quo remains the way it is.

[Internationalist Bastard]

Nah. I follow politics heavily, but I've never voted because I'm just insignificant. Even if I stood a chance at making a difference with my vote, my party has literally no politicial candidates.

If you don't get the importance of voting against someone when you have no one to vote for, then while you may be well-informed on specific issues, then I see you as somewhat poorly informed on a broader level (That's not meant as a jab or insult, though I can see how it could be taken that way), or you simply aren't a fan of the democratic process to begin with.

I see the value in it.
But, here, let me put it in extreme terms to make easier to explain.
Let's imagine every single candidate was running on the platform of executing their political rivals. I'm not voting for any of them, because I disagree with that concept. I don't see any of them as the lesser of two evils, or three evils or how ever many evils, I still view them all as evil. Hence, I feel my vote is pointless

[Minzerland II]

I understand that, exclusion doesn't mean deprivation, they'll still feel disenfranchised and excluded nonetheless; that causes problems.

If you (Meaning a general "you", not you personally) have a voting booth down the block from you, more than one candidate on the ballot, and either the ability to get yourself down there or a way to vote absentee, and you still feel disenfranchised, then I'm fine with you not voting, because you're unable to reason out that you're absolutely enfranchised.

If your polling places have been shut down, you have to go a few miles to vote, you have to stand in lines that last several hours, or you're otherwise the victim of politicians fucking with your access, and you WANT to vote, though, then raise hell. No get out the vote program will motivate that, though.

Humans are pretty much assholes whether they are given opportunities or not, the best we can do is minimise it whilst also giving them the choice.

[Pandeeria]

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.

And the fact that you're unable to see otherwise means that I am perfectly happy with you not voting.

What do you mean?

[Yumyumsuppertime]

If you don't get the importance of voting against someone when you have no one to vote for, then while you may be well-informed on specific issues, then I see you as somewhat poorly informed on a broader level (That's not meant as a jab or insult, though I can see how it could be taken that way), or you simply aren't a fan of the democratic process to begin with.

I see the value in it.
But, here, let me put it in extreme terms to make easier to explain.
Let's imagine every single candidate was running on the platform of executing their political rivals. I'm not voting for any of them, because I disagree with that concept. I don't see any of them as the lesser of two evils, or three evils or how ever many evils, I still view them all as evil. Hence, I feel my vote is pointless

At that point, it is pointless. However, at that point, you're probably looking at a revolution whoever wins. I'm talking about the political realities of here and now.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

If you don't get the importance of voting against someone when you have no one to vote for, then while you may be well-informed on specific issues, then I see you as somewhat poorly informed on a broader level (That's not meant as a jab or insult, though I can see how it could be taken that way), or you simply aren't a fan of the democratic process to begin with.

I see the value in it.
But, here, let me put it in extreme terms to make easier to explain.
Let's imagine every single candidate was running on the platform of executing their political rivals. I'm not voting for any of them, because I disagree with that concept. I don't see any of them as the lesser of two evils, or three evils or how ever many evils, I still view them all as evil. Hence, I feel my vote is pointless

At that point, it is pointless. However, at that point, you're probably looking at a revolution whoever wins. I'm talking about the political realities of here and now.

[Great Nepal]

Firstly your individual vote doesn't actually matter, no election that I can think of has come down to one vote; secondly if someone doesn't know what voting is, again probably better for everyone if they don't vote.

You say an individual vote doesn't matter, yet it is the individual vote that when piled with the others that can move the proverbial mountain.

Yes but that shows collective vote making a difference, not an individual one. I think we need to move away from idea that your vote can make a difference, it can't - your vote combined with others probably can but then if you're in area where your views are entirely radical, your vote is worth less. Point is no one's votes matter individually, just as we don't matter on larger scale, but that doesn't mean you don't vote just as you'd not stop living.

Then vote for whoever you dislike the least, or vote for third party, or spoil the ballot - all of these will be counted and sends an specific message; you are willing to live with one, you want someone else to win, you object to the entire system.

But I don't want any of them, that's what I'm saying. I don't hate democracy, I hate the idea being expected to be an obedient little bitch voting for who I hate the least

Are you seriously suggesting you don't agree with all of these candidates?

[Yumyumsuppertime]

If you (Meaning a general "you", not you personally) have a voting booth down the block from you, more than one candidate on the ballot, and either the ability to get yourself down there or a way to vote absentee, and you still feel disenfranchised, then I'm fine with you not voting, because you're unable to reason out that you're absolutely enfranchised.

If your polling places have been shut down, you have to go a few miles to vote, you have to stand in lines that last several hours, or you're otherwise the victim of politicians fucking with your access, and you WANT to vote, though, then raise hell. No get out the vote program will motivate that, though.

Humans are pretty much assholes whether they are given opportunities or not, the best we can do is minimise it whilst also giving them the choice.

Sure, give them the choice. If they want to leave it up to other people, though, and don't feel up to making imperfect or difficult decisions, then I have no issue with that.

[Valonde]

If you don't like any of the choices isn't it better to vote for the one that, to you, would do the least damage?

I have no rebuttal for the absurdity of the elections.

The thing with strategic voting (I.E. voting for the least of the two evils) is that it still does damage. You can lessen it perhaps, but ultimately a terrible candidate will still screw things up, and it also perpetuates the current system of two party dominance. Nothing changes.

If you keep voting for the lesser of two evils, you keep voting for one of the two broken parties still in the election. If you vote for a third party, well, you may as well be voting for the tooth fairy as a third candidate will certainly not win an election for the foreseeable future. If you just stay home and not vote, then you don't have any affect, even if said affect would only be negative (like the previous two options). In all situations you lose and the status quo remains the way it is.

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?

[Internationalist Bastard]

You say an individual vote doesn't matter, yet it is the individual vote that when piled with the others that can move the proverbial mountain.

Yes but that shows collective vote making a difference, not an individual one. I think we need to move away from idea that your vote can make a difference, it can't - your vote combined with others probably can but then if you're in area where your views are entirely radical, your vote is worth less. Point is no one's votes matter individually, just as we don't matter on larger scale, but that doesn't mean you don't vote just as you'd not stop living.

But I don't want any of them, that's what I'm saying. I don't hate democracy, I hate the idea being expected to be an obedient little bitch voting for who I hate the least

Are you seriously suggesting you don't agree with all of these candidates?

Yeah, like I said, my party is non political. I didn't read every single one, but I already know my views aren't being represented by any of them

[Freefall11111]

Ironically, compulsory voting has shown to force people to get informed, meaning that the countries with the highest voter participation are also the ones seeing the most citizen activism, donations to charity, highest rates of volunteering for parties etc...

I'm curious: What data do you have suggesting that the introduction of compulsory voting has decreased political ignorance?

[Yumyumsuppertime]

And the fact that you're unable to see otherwise means that I am perfectly happy with you not voting.

What do you mean?

Because if you are truly unable to see a difference between the candidates, then I don't trust your ability to make a fully informed decision. You're seeing black and black instead of black and white, or even the black and gray that I see. That's fine. It's an opinion that you've come to on your own. However, I'm also good with the idea that someone who isn't able to see even a sliver of difference between the candidates on major issues isn't going to take that type of reasoning into the voting booth.

[Internationalist Bastard]

I see the value in it.
But, here, let me put it in extreme terms to make easier to explain.
Let's imagine every single candidate was running on the platform of executing their political rivals. I'm not voting for any of them, because I disagree with that concept. I don't see any of them as the lesser of two evils, or three evils or how ever many evils, I still view them all as evil. Hence, I feel my vote is pointless

At that point, it is pointless. However, at that point, you're probably looking at a revolution whoever wins. I'm talking about the political realities of here and now.

What I'm saying is I view all the candidates as way too wrong for me to be comfortable voting for them.

[Great Nepal]

Yes but that shows collective vote making a difference, not an individual one. I think we need to move away from idea that your vote can make a difference, it can't - your vote combined with others probably can but then if you're in area where your views are entirely radical, your vote is worth less. Point is no one's votes matter individually, just as we don't matter on larger scale, but that doesn't mean you don't vote just as you'd not stop living.


Are you seriously suggesting you don't agree with all of these candidates?

Yeah, like I said, my party is non political. I didn't read every single one, but I already know my views aren't being represented by any of them

In that case probably time to register as an independent/ write-in candidate.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

At that point, it is pointless. However, at that point, you're probably looking at a revolution whoever wins. I'm talking about the political realities of here and now.

What I'm saying is I view all the candidates as way too wrong for me to be comfortable voting for them.

One's almost always going to be more wrong than another, even if it's by just a few degrees. If you're not comfortable with negotiating shades of gray, though, then I'm good with you leaving it up to people who are.

[Pandeeria]

The thing with strategic voting (I.E. voting for the least of the two evils) is that it still does damage. You can lessen it perhaps, but ultimately a terrible candidate will still screw things up, and it also perpetuates the current system of two party dominance. Nothing changes.

If you keep voting for the lesser of two evils, you keep voting for one of the two broken parties still in the election. If you vote for a third party, well, you may as well be voting for the tooth fairy as a third candidate will certainly not win an election for the foreseeable future. If you just stay home and not vote, then you don't have any affect, even if said affect would only be negative (like the previous two options). In all situations you lose and the status quo remains the way it is.

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.

[Corrian]

I have no understanding of economics whatsoever

[Pandeeria]

What do you mean?

Because if you are truly unable to see a difference between the candidates, then I don't trust your ability to make a fully informed decision. You're seeing black and black instead of black and white, or even the black and gray that I see. That's fine. It's an opinion that you've come to on your own. However, I'm also good with the idea that someone who isn't able to see even a sliver of difference between the candidates on major issues isn't going to take that type of reasoning into the voting booth.

So you're saying I'm politically inept/incompetent at making an informed vote simply because I see both parties as total shit that in practice are not all that different?

[Internationalist Bastard]

Yeah, like I said, my party is non political. I didn't read every single one, but I already know my views aren't being represented by any of them

In that case probably time to register as an independent/ write-in candidate.

No way. I a soldier, I've never been a leader. I can't give speeches, I can't handle leadership, hell I can barely keep my head above the water with my drinking problem. No, I'm just about the worst person to be president and I know it. I have to follow, it's my lot in life