6 ms·

Not voting is a legitimate choice.

by pg_bot 8y ago

matthewbauer 8y ago
And nagging friends and family who make that choice is also legitimate :)
- dwaltrip 8y ago
  It could be viewed as stalking their behavior through public records, which some might be find a bit more questionable.
sagichmal 8y ago
It certainly is not.
- baddox 8y ago
  I disagree. Clearly people disagree.
patejam 8y ago
Not really. The only legitimate reason to choose to not vote is if the top candidates are legitimately equally bad in your eyes. This almost never happens. "I don't like either of them" is not a logical reason not to vote. Choose the one you least dislike. Otherwise you're effectively voting against your interests by denying a vote to someone who would be better for you than the opposition. (This ignores other reasons not to vote that aren't really a choice. eg. you can't get off work or don't have time or something)
- Dylan16807 8y ago
  > The only legitimate reason to choose to not vote is if the top candidates are legitimately equally bad in your eyes In every race. And there have to be no other issues on the ballot. Voting isn't just about 1-3 people to send to DC.
- crottypeter 8y ago
  > (This ignores other reasons not to vote that aren't really a choice. eg. you can't get off work or don't have time or something) This is why postal votes exist. Not being able to guarantee availability on several arbitrary dates in the future is fixed by postal voting. I don't know if they exist in all countries/states though.
clouddrover 8y ago
In what way? What are you choosing exactly? Unless so few voters turn out that the election can't be considered valid (if there even is a minimum turnout required), someone's going to get elected and put in power. By not participating in that choice all you do is disenfranchise yourself. I'm surprised more countries don't have compulsory voting. Voluntary voting means political parties win elections by getting out the vote. They get out the vote by appealing to the extremes of their base, by suppressing the votes of their political opponents as much as possible, and by spending a lot of money on campaigning. And when political parties are desperate for money they are made vulnerable to interest groups with deep pockets. Compulsory voting helps get the money out of politics and moderates the extremes of policy because parties can't afford to appeal solely to their base. It's a simple approach to elections which can be applied to any democracy without changing the electoral system of that democracy. All that changes is that you have more votes to count.
- sheepmullet 8y ago
  > In what way? What are you choosing exactly? You are signalling that neither party has your support. Even in countries with mandatory voting a decent number of people cast an empty ballot.
  - clouddrover 8y ago
    > You are signalling that neither party has your support. To what point and purpose? A politician is accountable to the voters, not the non-voters. Non-voters are not a consideration because they've chosen not to be. > Even in countries with mandatory voting a decent number of people cast an empty ballot. Australia has compulsory voting. There was a 91.93% turnout at the 2016 election and 3.94% of those votes were informal (see the 24th page): https://www.aec.gov.au/About_AEC/research/files/voter-turnout-2016.pdf https://www.aec.gov.au/About_AEC/research/files/voter-turnou... So, in effect, about 12% of voters in Australia failed to vote in the 2016 election. Contrast that with a voter turnout of 60-61% in the 2016 US presidential election: https://www.census.gov/newsroom/blogs/random-samplings/2017/05/voting_in_america.html https://www.census.gov/newsroom/blogs/random-samplings/2017/... http://www.electproject.org/2016g http://www.electproject.org/2016g That's not counting any invalid votes so more than 39% of voting age citizens failed to vote in the 2016 election. I'd say the Australian model delivers a better result.
wslack 8y ago
Showing up and casting a blank ballot is legitimate. Abstaining is surrender.
pluma 8y ago
Not voting is the equivalent of saying "I support whatever the outcome is". You're effectively submitting to the status quo (or rather the future status quo). It's a legitimate choice in the sense that it's a decision you can make and that it carries a political message. It's most likely not the message you intend though.
- salvar 8y ago
  Submitting to the (future) status quo is very different from saying "I support whatever the outcome is" though. Unless you mean "support" as in "I will respect whatever happens", in which case I agree. But that applies to voters as well, and pretty much everyone.
- pessimizer 8y ago
  Only if choosing between two horrific candidates is the equivalent of saying "I support horrific candidate A." You can say "these candidates are both terrible" or "these candidates are completely indistinct" by not voting, and be saying "Candidate A will bring total disaster, even though Candidate B was the worst candidate I had ever seen until I saw Candidate A" when you vote for Candidate B. Your false dilemma is just a militant way of not listening to people.
- CuriouslyC 8y ago
  Stupid politicians see low voter turnout as a sign of laziness and indifference. Smart politicians see it as a sign that the platforms being presented aren't engaging, and look for ways to change their platform to remedy this. Unfortunately, because we're "all in" on the stupidity of the two party system, a lot of smart politicians are being hamstrung by their party affiliation.
  - sagichmal 8y ago
    Two parties are the natural and unavoidable consequence of first-past-the-post electoral systems. Work to change that, if you like, but meanwhile, work with the system that exists to shape society as you see fit.

Not voting is a legitimate choice.

by pg_bot 8y ago

Not voting is a legitimate choice.

matthewbauer 8y ago

And nagging friends and family who make that choice is also legitimate :)

dwaltrip 8y ago
It could be viewed as stalking their behavior through public records, which some might be find a bit more questionable.

sagichmal 8y ago

It certainly is not.

baddox 8y ago
I disagree. Clearly people disagree.

patejam 8y ago

Not really. The only legitimate reason to choose to not vote is if the top candidates are legitimately equally bad in your eyes. This almost never happens. "I don't like either of them" is not a logical reason not to vote. Choose the one you least dislike. Otherwise you're effectively voting against your interests by denying a vote to someone who would be better for you than the opposition. (This ignores other reasons not to vote that aren't really a choice. eg. you can't get off work or don't have time or something)

Dylan16807 8y ago
> The only legitimate reason to choose to not vote is if the top candidates are legitimately equally bad in your eyes In every race. And there have to be no other issues on the ballot. Voting isn't just about 1-3 people to send to DC.
crottypeter 8y ago
> (This ignores other reasons not to vote that aren't really a choice. eg. you can't get off work or don't have time or something) This is why postal votes exist. Not being able to guarantee availability on several arbitrary dates in the future is fixed by postal voting. I don't know if they exist in all countries/states though.

clouddrover 8y ago

In what way? What are you choosing exactly? Unless so few voters turn out that the election can't be considered valid (if there even is a minimum turnout required), someone's going to get elected and put in power. By not participating in that choice all you do is disenfranchise yourself. I'm surprised more countries don't have compulsory voting. Voluntary voting means political parties win elections by getting out the vote. They get out the vote by appealing to the extremes of their base, by suppressing the votes of their political opponents as much as possible, and by spending a lot of money on campaigning. And when political parties are desperate for money they are made vulnerable to interest groups with deep pockets. Compulsory voting helps get the money out of politics and moderates the extremes of policy because parties can't afford to appeal solely to their base. It's a simple approach to elections which can be applied to any democracy without changing the electoral system of that democracy. All that changes is that you have more votes to count.

sheepmullet 8y ago
> In what way? What are you choosing exactly? You are signalling that neither party has your support. Even in countries with mandatory voting a decent number of people cast an empty ballot.
- clouddrover 8y ago
  > You are signalling that neither party has your support. To what point and purpose? A politician is accountable to the voters, not the non-voters. Non-voters are not a consideration because they've chosen not to be. > Even in countries with mandatory voting a decent number of people cast an empty ballot. Australia has compulsory voting. There was a 91.93% turnout at the 2016 election and 3.94% of those votes were informal (see the 24th page): https://www.aec.gov.au/About_AEC/research/files/voter-turnout-2016.pdf https://www.aec.gov.au/About_AEC/research/files/voter-turnou... So, in effect, about 12% of voters in Australia failed to vote in the 2016 election. Contrast that with a voter turnout of 60-61% in the 2016 US presidential election: https://www.census.gov/newsroom/blogs/random-samplings/2017/05/voting_in_america.html https://www.census.gov/newsroom/blogs/random-samplings/2017/... http://www.electproject.org/2016g http://www.electproject.org/2016g That's not counting any invalid votes so more than 39% of voting age citizens failed to vote in the 2016 election. I'd say the Australian model delivers a better result.

wslack 8y ago

Showing up and casting a blank ballot is legitimate. Abstaining is surrender.

pluma 8y ago

Not voting is the equivalent of saying "I support whatever the outcome is". You're effectively submitting to the status quo (or rather the future status quo). It's a legitimate choice in the sense that it's a decision you can make and that it carries a political message. It's most likely not the message you intend though.

salvar 8y ago
Submitting to the (future) status quo is very different from saying "I support whatever the outcome is" though. Unless you mean "support" as in "I will respect whatever happens", in which case I agree. But that applies to voters as well, and pretty much everyone.
pessimizer 8y ago
Only if choosing between two horrific candidates is the equivalent of saying "I support horrific candidate A." You can say "these candidates are both terrible" or "these candidates are completely indistinct" by not voting, and be saying "Candidate A will bring total disaster, even though Candidate B was the worst candidate I had ever seen until I saw Candidate A" when you vote for Candidate B. Your false dilemma is just a militant way of not listening to people.
CuriouslyC 8y ago
Stupid politicians see low voter turnout as a sign of laziness and indifference. Smart politicians see it as a sign that the platforms being presented aren't engaging, and look for ways to change their platform to remedy this. Unfortunately, because we're "all in" on the stupidity of the two party system, a lot of smart politicians are being hamstrung by their party affiliation.
- sagichmal 8y ago
  Two parties are the natural and unavoidable consequence of first-past-the-post electoral systems. Work to change that, if you like, but meanwhile, work with the system that exists to shape society as you see fit.