4 ms·

Not to sound elitist, but is that really a good thing? What sorts of people are going to be simultaneously not motivated to vote, and good at picking the best

Not to sound elitist, but is that really a good thing? What sorts of people are going to be simultaneously not motivated to vote, and good at picking the best candidate?

wang_li 10y ago
I think that's the point. Low information voters can be easily swayed by the free candy party.
debracleaver 10y ago
very few non-voters are unmotivated to vote. voters are far more likely to not cast ballots because voting is too hard.
- JonFish85 10y ago
  Really? Is that based on evidence, or just a gut feeling? My gut feeling would have been the opposite: people are too lazy and have a general feeling of "it wouldn't matter anyways, I'm only one vote".
- giancarlostoro 10y ago
  Or in other cases they feel the candidates are not worth their salt. I know a number of people who feel this way.
- fotbr 10y ago
  I refuse to participate in a process I know from personal experience to be corrupt at the local level. When the people responsible for investigating are the same people responsible for the illegal acts and the state and federal agencies tasked with enforcement won't even take the complaint -- well, there's nothing that's going to convince me that there is any hope for this county's process. In 2004, our ballots had the presidential candidates as the first item. I personally witnessed ballots being sorted at the polling location and placed in different boxes based on that first item. The boxes were identifiable as to which was which ("GWB","JK" and "AO" - all others), placed into the back of a sheriff's car, and driven to the election board's office. The "GWB" box remained in the back seat of the car while the "JK" and "AO" boxes were taken in to the office to be counted. Since I wasn't blessed as an "official" observer, I was not allowed inside. The "GWB" box was never counted, driven back to the Sheriff's office, and was discarded in their dumpster, locked and unopened. Anyone in that particular batch who voted for GWB had their votes, not just for president, but for congressional office and local issues, thrown out. Every single official -- county, state, and fed -- I tried to report the issue to responded with some variation of "mistakes happen, it's not an issue we're going to look into". Party officials didn't care -- D's votes got counted, R's didn't care because the D's had solidly carried that county for decades and more-or-less written the county off, and no one else had the manpower to do anything about it. My vote (in the AO category that time around) was counted, or at least made it inside to be counted, but it still bothers me that things are so corrupt that there isn't even an attempt to hide the corruption. Fix the absolutely blatant corruption, and I might, possibly, be motivated to vote. I don't mean charging people with little misdemeanors and letting them plead out to fines. I want to see felony charges and jail time for those participating, furthering, and knowingly benefiting from the systemic abuse of our election processes.
wturner 10y ago
It is irrelevant. Democracy isn't about picking the best candidate, it is about achieving a median that facilitates social order.
- redthrowaway 10y ago
  I actually like Karl Popper's take: elections are for getting rid of bad rulers, nothing more. Constitutional limits on government ensure a free and open society, while insulating leaders from the will of the people prevents a tyranny of the majority. http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2016/01/karl-popper-democracy http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2016/01/ka...
- ck2 10y ago
  US is big about boasting "peaceful change of power" but I suspect those days are coming to a head with the extremes now seen in congress.
nerfhammer 10y ago
It reduces the power of highly motivated special interest groups if everyone votes. Don't know how to weigh that against the possible downside you mention.
- dkopi 10y ago
  Most of the power special interest groups have doesn't come from their general voting patterns power in general elections.
robbiemitchell 10y ago
> best candidate Erm, how do you define best? (I know how _I_ define it, but not anyone else.) More importantly, what sorts of people are simultaneously motivated to vote and NOT good at picking "the best" (translation: my preferred) candidate? PLENTY.
natrius 10y ago
I am skeptic of electoral democracy, but as long as we're doing it, aiming for 100% turnout is the only option. The incentives in electoral democracy reward those who marginalize voters who disagree with them, and it's far easier to marginalize the powerless than the powerful. This is an unacceptable outcome, yet we've done it since the founding of the republic, and we still do it today.

Not to sound elitist, but is that really a good thing? What sorts of people are going to be simultaneously not motivated to vote, and good at picking the best candidate?

wang_li 10y ago

I think that's the point. Low information voters can be easily swayed by the free candy party.

debracleaver 10y ago

very few non-voters are unmotivated to vote. voters are far more likely to not cast ballots because voting is too hard.

JonFish85 10y ago
Really? Is that based on evidence, or just a gut feeling? My gut feeling would have been the opposite: people are too lazy and have a general feeling of "it wouldn't matter anyways, I'm only one vote".
giancarlostoro 10y ago
Or in other cases they feel the candidates are not worth their salt. I know a number of people who feel this way.
fotbr 10y ago
I refuse to participate in a process I know from personal experience to be corrupt at the local level. When the people responsible for investigating are the same people responsible for the illegal acts and the state and federal agencies tasked with enforcement won't even take the complaint -- well, there's nothing that's going to convince me that there is any hope for this county's process. In 2004, our ballots had the presidential candidates as the first item. I personally witnessed ballots being sorted at the polling location and placed in different boxes based on that first item. The boxes were identifiable as to which was which ("GWB","JK" and "AO" - all others), placed into the back of a sheriff's car, and driven to the election board's office. The "GWB" box remained in the back seat of the car while the "JK" and "AO" boxes were taken in to the office to be counted. Since I wasn't blessed as an "official" observer, I was not allowed inside. The "GWB" box was never counted, driven back to the Sheriff's office, and was discarded in their dumpster, locked and unopened. Anyone in that particular batch who voted for GWB had their votes, not just for president, but for congressional office and local issues, thrown out. Every single official -- county, state, and fed -- I tried to report the issue to responded with some variation of "mistakes happen, it's not an issue we're going to look into". Party officials didn't care -- D's votes got counted, R's didn't care because the D's had solidly carried that county for decades and more-or-less written the county off, and no one else had the manpower to do anything about it. My vote (in the AO category that time around) was counted, or at least made it inside to be counted, but it still bothers me that things are so corrupt that there isn't even an attempt to hide the corruption. Fix the absolutely blatant corruption, and I might, possibly, be motivated to vote. I don't mean charging people with little misdemeanors and letting them plead out to fines. I want to see felony charges and jail time for those participating, furthering, and knowingly benefiting from the systemic abuse of our election processes.

wturner 10y ago

It is irrelevant. Democracy isn't about picking the best candidate, it is about achieving a median that facilitates social order.

redthrowaway 10y ago
I actually like Karl Popper's take: elections are for getting rid of bad rulers, nothing more. Constitutional limits on government ensure a free and open society, while insulating leaders from the will of the people prevents a tyranny of the majority. http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2016/01/karl-popper-democracy http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2016/01/ka...
ck2 10y ago
US is big about boasting "peaceful change of power" but I suspect those days are coming to a head with the extremes now seen in congress.

nerfhammer 10y ago

It reduces the power of highly motivated special interest groups if everyone votes. Don't know how to weigh that against the possible downside you mention.

dkopi 10y ago
Most of the power special interest groups have doesn't come from their general voting patterns power in general elections.

robbiemitchell 10y ago

> best candidate Erm, how do you define best? (I know how _I_ define it, but not anyone else.) More importantly, what sorts of people are simultaneously motivated to vote and NOT good at picking "the best" (translation: my preferred) candidate? PLENTY.

natrius 10y ago

I am skeptic of electoral democracy, but as long as we're doing it, aiming for 100% turnout is the only option. The incentives in electoral democracy reward those who marginalize voters who disagree with them, and it's far easier to marginalize the powerless than the powerful. This is an unacceptable outcome, yet we've done it since the founding of the republic, and we still do it today.