4 ms·

If they cared they would have voted. Not voting is a choice too.

by andrewchambers 10y ago

Mz 10y ago
Sometimes, it is more complicated than that.
- ryan-allen 10y ago
  Personal responsibility starts with the individual. The sheer arrogance of those who didn't vote and were upset with the result is astounding. Maybe they'll learn and act appropriately next time.
  - mkaziz 10y ago
    What interests me is that, despite that example, folks across the pond made exactly that mistake in November! Maybe we truly can't learn from others' mistakes.
  - Mz 10y ago
    I am currently homeless and chronically ill. I looked into trying to register to vote locally for U.S. elections last fall. I am registered to vote elsewhere, but failed to get registered locally (gave up when it became clear it would be too late). The assumption that you can manage to fit voting into your life comes from a place of privilege that some people lack. Punishing them harder until they behave more responsibly fixes nothing.
    - ryan-allen 10y ago
      I'm sorry you're homeless and chronically ill. I was talking about people in the UK though, I'm aware it's difficult in the US but to my knowledge the UK is much different. EDIT: It appears the UK has some problems too [1], and being Australian where voting is a legal requirement, easy to enroll and difficult to drop off the register, my perspective is perhaps a bit harsh. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/public-leaders-network/2015/feb/05/missing-voters-individual-electoral-registration-disaster https://www.theguardian.com/public-leaders-network/2015/feb/...
    - refurb 10y ago
      So is the argument that Remain would have won had it not been for the physical state of the voters? I'm sorry to hear of your situation, but I hardly think it's relevant to the discussion.
__realtime 10y ago
they might have voted in favor...
DaiPlusPlus 10y ago
I'd wager many did and do care - but complacency was rife on the Remain side during the Brexit referendum - I suspect that's why Leave (and Trump) won.
- ajmurmann 10y ago
  I frequently wonder why our processes of casting a vote is as simple as it is. The entire complacency issue would be resolved if the voting booths stayed open several days and we had daily counts published. I'm sure we could come up with some clever way when the vote would end. Instead we are for some reason afraid to even count more than once. I really don't get it.
  - refurb 10y ago
    I really don't get it. Really? In Canada they often had a ban on televising election results until after polls closed. Why? You don't want someone changing their vote because of how the polls are going. You know, you want them to vote based on their own beliefs, not who is going to win.
    - ajmurmann 10y ago
      Well, I might not bother voting because there is no way the Nazi party will win the election. I believe we have seen this kind of effect more than once in recent elections. What's bad if I only vote once I realize"my candidate" might actually lose?
    - DaiPlusPlus 10y ago
      "You don't want someone changing their vote because of how the polls are going. You know, you want them to vote based on their own beliefs, not who is going to win." That idea makes sense in true proportional representation system, but in a first-past-the-post system then strategic-voting becomes important (as voting-for-beliefs is an immediately suboptimal strategy), and therefore if voters know who is currently in the lead and alter their voting behaviour then surely that's a good thing for democracy?

If they cared they would have voted. Not voting is a choice too.

Mz 10y ago

Sometimes, it is more complicated than that.

ryan-allen 10y ago
Personal responsibility starts with the individual. The sheer arrogance of those who didn't vote and were upset with the result is astounding. Maybe they'll learn and act appropriately next time.
- mkaziz 10y ago
  What interests me is that, despite that example, folks across the pond made exactly that mistake in November! Maybe we truly can't learn from others' mistakes.
- Mz 10y ago
  I am currently homeless and chronically ill. I looked into trying to register to vote locally for U.S. elections last fall. I am registered to vote elsewhere, but failed to get registered locally (gave up when it became clear it would be too late). The assumption that you can manage to fit voting into your life comes from a place of privilege that some people lack. Punishing them harder until they behave more responsibly fixes nothing.
  - ryan-allen 10y ago
    I'm sorry you're homeless and chronically ill. I was talking about people in the UK though, I'm aware it's difficult in the US but to my knowledge the UK is much different. EDIT: It appears the UK has some problems too [1], and being Australian where voting is a legal requirement, easy to enroll and difficult to drop off the register, my perspective is perhaps a bit harsh. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/public-leaders-network/2015/feb/05/missing-voters-individual-electoral-registration-disaster https://www.theguardian.com/public-leaders-network/2015/feb/...
  - refurb 10y ago
    So is the argument that Remain would have won had it not been for the physical state of the voters? I'm sorry to hear of your situation, but I hardly think it's relevant to the discussion.

__realtime 10y ago

they might have voted in favor...

DaiPlusPlus 10y ago

I'd wager many did and do care - but complacency was rife on the Remain side during the Brexit referendum - I suspect that's why Leave (and Trump) won.

ajmurmann 10y ago
I frequently wonder why our processes of casting a vote is as simple as it is. The entire complacency issue would be resolved if the voting booths stayed open several days and we had daily counts published. I'm sure we could come up with some clever way when the vote would end. Instead we are for some reason afraid to even count more than once. I really don't get it.
- refurb 10y ago
  I really don't get it. Really? In Canada they often had a ban on televising election results until after polls closed. Why? You don't want someone changing their vote because of how the polls are going. You know, you want them to vote based on their own beliefs, not who is going to win.
  - ajmurmann 10y ago
    Well, I might not bother voting because there is no way the Nazi party will win the election. I believe we have seen this kind of effect more than once in recent elections. What's bad if I only vote once I realize"my candidate" might actually lose?
  - DaiPlusPlus 10y ago
    "You don't want someone changing their vote because of how the polls are going. You know, you want them to vote based on their own beliefs, not who is going to win." That idea makes sense in true proportional representation system, but in a first-past-the-post system then strategic-voting becomes important (as voting-for-beliefs is an immediately suboptimal strategy), and therefore if voters know who is currently in the lead and alter their voting behaviour then surely that's a good thing for democracy?