4 ms·

> 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

> 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.
- sheepmullet 8y ago
  > To what point and purpose? 1) Because you don’t want to feel responsible. 2) To ensure politicians have to work for your vote. Item 2 would work even better if we moved away from first past the post. > I'd say the Australian model delivers a better result. Better in what way? I don’t think more people voting is automatically better.
  - clouddrover 8y ago
    > To ensure politicians have to work for your vote. By not voting you're telling politicians that you don't matter and they will believe you. > Better in what way? As I said in my first post, compulsory voting helps get the money out of politics and moderates the extremes of policy. Less money is wasted on campaigning and policies must appeal to a broader group of people.
    - sheepmullet 8y ago
      > By not voting you're telling politicians that you don't matter and they will believe you. Which party wouldn’t work hard to get an extra 100k+ voters? > moderates the extremes of policy. Not that the US is perfect but Australia still seems to have plenty of idiots in politics.
      - clouddrover 8y ago
        > Which party wouldn’t work hard to get an extra 100k+ voters? Which party wouldn't work harder when they know that if you're not voting for them, you're voting for someone else? And, importantly, the nature of the work is different. Compulsory voting means more policy work and less work energizing the base.
        CuriouslyC 8y ago
        You're operating under the assumption that there is a base that basically supports one of the provided candidates, and they are just too lazy to get up and cast their vote. This might be true for some people, but there are a lot of people who don't vote because the candidates suck. Also, if I didn't vote for someone because I don't believe in them, the fact that they have to spend more time "energizing their base" and less time "governing" is a good thing, it means less chance for them to do stuff I disapprove of. Inaction is generally superior to wrong action.
        sheepmullet 8y ago
        > Which party wouldn't work harder when they know that if you're not voting for them, you're voting for someone else? It completely changes the strategy - when you know everyone has to vote the winning strategy is to be the least worst. This leads to mediocre politicians who will “kick the can down the road”.
      - ken 8y ago
        > Which party wouldn’t work hard to get an extra 100k+ voters? Parties in America, where 100K votes might be perfectly useless, if they're not in a battleground state. In 2012, Obama beat Romney in California by over 3 million votes. Getting 100K extra votes in California wouldn't have helped either party, and just taken time/money/people away from states where it mattered -- like Florida, which was decided by fewer than 100K votes. It's not a matter of voter turnout, either. Even if every voter who stayed home in California in 2012 voted for Romney, he still wouldn't have won the state.
a_imho 8y ago
I like how the word neither subtly recognizes majority voting leads to mostly 2 party systems.

> 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.

sheepmullet 8y ago
> To what point and purpose? 1) Because you don’t want to feel responsible. 2) To ensure politicians have to work for your vote. Item 2 would work even better if we moved away from first past the post. > I'd say the Australian model delivers a better result. Better in what way? I don’t think more people voting is automatically better.
- clouddrover 8y ago
  > To ensure politicians have to work for your vote. By not voting you're telling politicians that you don't matter and they will believe you. > Better in what way? As I said in my first post, compulsory voting helps get the money out of politics and moderates the extremes of policy. Less money is wasted on campaigning and policies must appeal to a broader group of people.
  - sheepmullet 8y ago
    > By not voting you're telling politicians that you don't matter and they will believe you. Which party wouldn’t work hard to get an extra 100k+ voters? > moderates the extremes of policy. Not that the US is perfect but Australia still seems to have plenty of idiots in politics.
    - clouddrover 8y ago
      > Which party wouldn’t work hard to get an extra 100k+ voters? Which party wouldn't work harder when they know that if you're not voting for them, you're voting for someone else? And, importantly, the nature of the work is different. Compulsory voting means more policy work and less work energizing the base.
      - CuriouslyC 8y ago
        You're operating under the assumption that there is a base that basically supports one of the provided candidates, and they are just too lazy to get up and cast their vote. This might be true for some people, but there are a lot of people who don't vote because the candidates suck. Also, if I didn't vote for someone because I don't believe in them, the fact that they have to spend more time "energizing their base" and less time "governing" is a good thing, it means less chance for them to do stuff I disapprove of. Inaction is generally superior to wrong action.
      - sheepmullet 8y ago
        > Which party wouldn't work harder when they know that if you're not voting for them, you're voting for someone else? It completely changes the strategy - when you know everyone has to vote the winning strategy is to be the least worst. This leads to mediocre politicians who will “kick the can down the road”.
    - ken 8y ago
      > Which party wouldn’t work hard to get an extra 100k+ voters? Parties in America, where 100K votes might be perfectly useless, if they're not in a battleground state. In 2012, Obama beat Romney in California by over 3 million votes. Getting 100K extra votes in California wouldn't have helped either party, and just taken time/money/people away from states where it mattered -- like Florida, which was decided by fewer than 100K votes. It's not a matter of voter turnout, either. Even if every voter who stayed home in California in 2012 voted for Romney, he still wouldn't have won the state.

a_imho 8y ago

I like how the word neither subtly recognizes majority voting leads to mostly 2 party systems.