4 ms·

Meh, why is turnout something one should encourage? Put another way, why should the voices of those who could barely be bothered to show up be amplified over th

by wtbob 11y ago

Meh, why is turnout something one should encourage? Put another way, why should the voices of those who could barely be bothered to show up be amplified over those of those who really care? I don't want 100% turnout; I do want the people who don't care to stay home. I'd also like to only allow people who can pass the citizenship test given to prospective naturalised citizens to be able to vote, but that's an entirely different discussion…

skj 11y ago
I think most people do care, but that many of them are disillusioned.
- jeremysmyth 11y ago
  "Disillusioned" is a catch-all for so many different things though. One might be upset at hearing about corrupt practices or "it's not what you know it's who you know" politics, because that's all we hear about in the news and on TV shows (because that's the salacious part of politics). One might be upset at having no effective voice because of the two-party system and the sheer size of the electorate in each state: If I'm a libertarian or a national socialist or a communist, I have no real representation in government. One might be disillusioned that the above points don't actually reflect how democracy works, and that the real hard work of legislation comes from things the public doesn't get to see: Cultivating relationships; the give and take of favors and votes; saying yes to something that's slightly against your principles so that you can get a reciprocal yes for something important to you later on. Disillusionment is too big a thing to make me stop voting. The best way to change the system is to use it, and that means I need to vote, despite each of the above points. The next best way to change the system is to bring about revolution that replaces it, and that is a singularity that nobody can see beyond, and that recent history has not shown to work.
  - nitrogen 11y ago
    First-past-the-post voting is mathematically incapable of anything other than highly polarized politics: http://zesty.ca/voting/sim/ http://zesty.ca/voting/sim/
  - VLM 11y ago
    Four extended disillusionment arguments. Your lack of representation argument can be extended to "captured" demographics. Lets say 99% of teachers vote for party X, which is actually pretty accurate. Then party X has no need whatsoever to represent the needs of teachers because they're guaranteed all the votes no matter what they do in office. Likewise no teachers vote for party Y by the definition of being a captured demographic. That means party Y has no need to represent teachers because there is no reward. Or rephrased, a captured demographic will not be represented because one party has no negative consequences, and the other has no positive consequences. Its not so much an effect of voting as it is primary nomination effect. Also voting isn't necessarily the most important support, the PACs providing election funding are the most important form of support. Many people are members of captive demographics, meaning they are un-represented. Teachers, blacks, anti-abortion, feminists, more or less every orientation other than straight... When you cross off all of them, there's not much actual representing going on, for something calling itself a representative government. One reason I often don't vote is the only minimal impact I can make due to extreme gerrymandering is to protest the system. Here's one non-vote proclaiming I'm not represented. I think the stats showing 4/5 of the population feel UN-represented are if anything an understatement of the facts. Probably less than 5% of the population are represented at this time, the rest of the voters are just ill informed. Another reason not to vote that you missed, voting is kind of an opiate of the masses to let them think they can provide input, which of course they cannot. Once you understand that, its pointless. Participating in voting is like people looking for religious enlightenment in opiates, you can delude yourself but it doesn't really accomplish anything. Whats in it for me to knowingly delude myself? The final reason not to vote is rebellion. Blind irrational faith in the election system is as close to an established state secular religion we have. Not voting is as rebellious as being the only guy without tattoos or the only guy without body piercings. Not voting is religious apostasy. I'm about as likely to start voting as I am to throw stones at known adulterers or own a Canadian as a biblical slave. There are other reasons like pragmatically the results of voting are bad governments, but thats a long debate.
Retric 11y ago
Caring and believing it's meaningful to show up are two different things.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
- JoeAltmaier 11y ago
  People moving doesn't affect turnout calculations by more than a percent, right? We get 20% turnout because, really, four out of five folks aren't voting. Not because we didn't calculate it right. And I object to 'rational reasons' and 'do care' in the same sentence. Either they mean to vote or they don't. Pretending to care and making excuses equals 'don't care'.
Jach 11y ago
Sounds like you disagree with the core concept underlying one man, one vote. Why should a person who squeaks by with correctly answering 6/10 of the test questions be given the exact same voice as someone who gets 10/10, and someone with 5/10 gets no voice at all?
- Lawtonfogle 11y ago
  I convince people to not vote. If I can convince you not to vote with a single argument, then your input is something our country doesn't need. I do not at any time stop them from voting; I only tell them it doesn't matter and they shouldn't waste their time. Everyone gets a vote, but I'm not losing any sleep when those who don't care enough to vote don't get their say recorded. (Of course there is a problem where people who want to vote are prevented from voting. This is an issue that needs to be fixed so that everyone who wants to vote can vote.)
  - Retra 11y ago
    You should be convincing people to care, not to avoid voting. Besides, voting isn't supposed to be the place where you disenfranchise yourself. People who really care should run for office. ("Representative government" and all that.)
  - Jach 11y ago
    So you draw the line at "desires to vote" rather than "is capable of answering a few trivia questions". But say passing the test was a requirement to vote, wouldn't the people who want to vote naturally proceed with studying for and taking the test, while those who don't want to won't be bothered since overcoming the obstacle is even greater than overcoming the resistance of mailing in a form or going to an actual booth? (Or perhaps using an app?) Thus the test would serve as a proxy for desire, with even more potential upsides according to GP. What would the distribution look like given no filter, filtering by test passers, and filtering by people who want to vote?
    - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
      >But say passing the test was a requirement to vote, wouldn't the people who want to vote naturally proceed with studying for and taking the test, while those who don't want to won't be bothered since overcoming the obstacle is even greater than overcoming the resistance of mailing in a form or going to an actual booth? The problem is that any such test with answers could be inherently biased against some groups. 'Do I feel like going to vote today' is not biased in such a way as the person taking the test is the creator of the test itself. Imagine if there was a test to vote, but every person created their own test, answered their own test, and then scored their own test (and the test didn't have to make sense to anyone, including the person who created/took/graded it).
savanaly 11y ago
I don't want 100% turnout either, but for an entirely different reason. It would be a big waste of time! Why get 100% of the US's 300+ million people to take an afternoon out of their lives when we could get nearly the same accuracy if we only had 1% of that turn out to vote (keeping the demographics the same, ideally). The margin for error is miniscule with 3 million voters for 4-5 candidates, just as it is miniscule with 300 million. And the productivity gains (including increased leisure time as productive) would be huge.

by wtbob 11y ago

skj 11y ago

I think most people do care, but that many of them are disillusioned.

jeremysmyth 11y ago
"Disillusioned" is a catch-all for so many different things though. One might be upset at hearing about corrupt practices or "it's not what you know it's who you know" politics, because that's all we hear about in the news and on TV shows (because that's the salacious part of politics). One might be upset at having no effective voice because of the two-party system and the sheer size of the electorate in each state: If I'm a libertarian or a national socialist or a communist, I have no real representation in government. One might be disillusioned that the above points don't actually reflect how democracy works, and that the real hard work of legislation comes from things the public doesn't get to see: Cultivating relationships; the give and take of favors and votes; saying yes to something that's slightly against your principles so that you can get a reciprocal yes for something important to you later on. Disillusionment is too big a thing to make me stop voting. The best way to change the system is to use it, and that means I need to vote, despite each of the above points. The next best way to change the system is to bring about revolution that replaces it, and that is a singularity that nobody can see beyond, and that recent history has not shown to work.
- nitrogen 11y ago
  First-past-the-post voting is mathematically incapable of anything other than highly polarized politics: http://zesty.ca/voting/sim/ http://zesty.ca/voting/sim/
- VLM 11y ago
  Four extended disillusionment arguments. Your lack of representation argument can be extended to "captured" demographics. Lets say 99% of teachers vote for party X, which is actually pretty accurate. Then party X has no need whatsoever to represent the needs of teachers because they're guaranteed all the votes no matter what they do in office. Likewise no teachers vote for party Y by the definition of being a captured demographic. That means party Y has no need to represent teachers because there is no reward. Or rephrased, a captured demographic will not be represented because one party has no negative consequences, and the other has no positive consequences. Its not so much an effect of voting as it is primary nomination effect. Also voting isn't necessarily the most important support, the PACs providing election funding are the most important form of support. Many people are members of captive demographics, meaning they are un-represented. Teachers, blacks, anti-abortion, feminists, more or less every orientation other than straight... When you cross off all of them, there's not much actual representing going on, for something calling itself a representative government. One reason I often don't vote is the only minimal impact I can make due to extreme gerrymandering is to protest the system. Here's one non-vote proclaiming I'm not represented. I think the stats showing 4/5 of the population feel UN-represented are if anything an understatement of the facts. Probably less than 5% of the population are represented at this time, the rest of the voters are just ill informed. Another reason not to vote that you missed, voting is kind of an opiate of the masses to let them think they can provide input, which of course they cannot. Once you understand that, its pointless. Participating in voting is like people looking for religious enlightenment in opiates, you can delude yourself but it doesn't really accomplish anything. Whats in it for me to knowingly delude myself? The final reason not to vote is rebellion. Blind irrational faith in the election system is as close to an established state secular religion we have. Not voting is as rebellious as being the only guy without tattoos or the only guy without body piercings. Not voting is religious apostasy. I'm about as likely to start voting as I am to throw stones at known adulterers or own a Canadian as a biblical slave. There are other reasons like pragmatically the results of voting are bad governments, but thats a long debate.

Retric 11y ago

Caring and believing it's meaningful to show up are two different things.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

JoeAltmaier 11y ago
People moving doesn't affect turnout calculations by more than a percent, right? We get 20% turnout because, really, four out of five folks aren't voting. Not because we didn't calculate it right. And I object to 'rational reasons' and 'do care' in the same sentence. Either they mean to vote or they don't. Pretending to care and making excuses equals 'don't care'.

Jach 11y ago

Sounds like you disagree with the core concept underlying one man, one vote. Why should a person who squeaks by with correctly answering 6/10 of the test questions be given the exact same voice as someone who gets 10/10, and someone with 5/10 gets no voice at all?

Lawtonfogle 11y ago
I convince people to not vote. If I can convince you not to vote with a single argument, then your input is something our country doesn't need. I do not at any time stop them from voting; I only tell them it doesn't matter and they shouldn't waste their time. Everyone gets a vote, but I'm not losing any sleep when those who don't care enough to vote don't get their say recorded. (Of course there is a problem where people who want to vote are prevented from voting. This is an issue that needs to be fixed so that everyone who wants to vote can vote.)
- Retra 11y ago
  You should be convincing people to care, not to avoid voting. Besides, voting isn't supposed to be the place where you disenfranchise yourself. People who really care should run for office. ("Representative government" and all that.)
- Jach 11y ago
  So you draw the line at "desires to vote" rather than "is capable of answering a few trivia questions". But say passing the test was a requirement to vote, wouldn't the people who want to vote naturally proceed with studying for and taking the test, while those who don't want to won't be bothered since overcoming the obstacle is even greater than overcoming the resistance of mailing in a form or going to an actual booth? (Or perhaps using an app?) Thus the test would serve as a proxy for desire, with even more potential upsides according to GP. What would the distribution look like given no filter, filtering by test passers, and filtering by people who want to vote?
  - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
    >But say passing the test was a requirement to vote, wouldn't the people who want to vote naturally proceed with studying for and taking the test, while those who don't want to won't be bothered since overcoming the obstacle is even greater than overcoming the resistance of mailing in a form or going to an actual booth? The problem is that any such test with answers could be inherently biased against some groups. 'Do I feel like going to vote today' is not biased in such a way as the person taking the test is the creator of the test itself. Imagine if there was a test to vote, but every person created their own test, answered their own test, and then scored their own test (and the test didn't have to make sense to anyone, including the person who created/took/graded it).

savanaly 11y ago

I don't want 100% turnout either, but for an entirely different reason. It would be a big waste of time! Why get 100% of the US's 300+ million people to take an afternoon out of their lives when we could get nearly the same accuracy if we only had 1% of that turn out to vote (keeping the demographics the same, ideally). The margin for error is miniscule with 3 million voters for 4-5 candidates, just as it is miniscule with 300 million. And the productivity gains (including increased leisure time as productive) would be huge.