4 ms·

The problem is then what do you do with low voter turnout? The article says that this election has in previous years resulted in <1% of eligible voters. That is

by plopz 7y ago

The problem is then what do you do with low voter turnout? The article says that this election has in previous years resulted in <1% of eligible voters. That is clearly untenable.

macspoofing 7y ago
>The problem is then what do you do with low voter turnout? What's the problem with low voter turnout? If someone doesn't feel like voting, they should have that right. A non-vote is a vote of confidence that you are OK with any choice. In fact, high voter turnout is usually indicative of major societal divisions or issues (case in point, the upcoming national election will probably have HIGH voter turnout as anti-Trump and pro-Trump people will turn out in droves). > The article says that this election has in previous years resulted in <1% of eligible voters. That is clearly untenable. Why is it untenable? What is the harm? The alternative is you force people to vote, and they'll vote by choosing a name randomly from a list.
- AcerbicZero 7y ago
  You're looking at it backwards. Democracy draws its power from the "consent of the governed", not from the complacency of the subjects. Remember the whole "taxation without representation" thing back when this democracy thing was getting started? Government is a tool of the people, and if the people chose to not engage in the process, the government has no legitimate claim by which it can act on the people's behalf. The government doesn't ask for your consent, it assumes it, and the only method by which you can directly withhold consent is to refuse to participate in their political process. Low voter turnout is an indicator of an illegitimate government, which no longer has the consent of the people to continue governing them (At least in a democracy). *Edit: If people chose to not vote (or engage in other political actions) the question should be "do we need this part of the government" not "how do we get more people to vote in this part of the government"
  - macspoofing 7y ago
    >Democracy draws its power from the "consent of the governed" OK. I believe I'm arguing for consent. >not from the complacency of the subjects That's a red-herring. It has nothing to do with anything. >and if the people chose to not engage in the process, the government has no legitimate claim by which it can act on the people's behalf. If they choose to not engage because they don't trust the system .. then sure, that's a problem. If they choose to not engage because they are fine with any outcome - I don't see the problem. > Low voter turnout is an indicator of an illegitimate government You can't just say things. Sometimes that may be the case. And sometimes it may not. Typically in western nations, low voter turnout stems from a comfortable, prosperous life. >If people chose to not vote (or engage in other political actions) the question should be "do we need this part of the government" not "how do we get more people to vote in this part of the government" Sure. And I'm not against either.

by plopz 7y ago

The problem is then what do you do with low voter turnout? The article says that this election has in previous years resulted in <1% of eligible voters. That is clearly untenable.

macspoofing 7y ago

>The problem is then what do you do with low voter turnout? What's the problem with low voter turnout? If someone doesn't feel like voting, they should have that right. A non-vote is a vote of confidence that you are OK with any choice. In fact, high voter turnout is usually indicative of major societal divisions or issues (case in point, the upcoming national election will probably have HIGH voter turnout as anti-Trump and pro-Trump people will turn out in droves). > The article says that this election has in previous years resulted in <1% of eligible voters. That is clearly untenable. Why is it untenable? What is the harm? The alternative is you force people to vote, and they'll vote by choosing a name randomly from a list.

AcerbicZero 7y ago
You're looking at it backwards. Democracy draws its power from the "consent of the governed", not from the complacency of the subjects. Remember the whole "taxation without representation" thing back when this democracy thing was getting started? Government is a tool of the people, and if the people chose to not engage in the process, the government has no legitimate claim by which it can act on the people's behalf. The government doesn't ask for your consent, it assumes it, and the only method by which you can directly withhold consent is to refuse to participate in their political process. Low voter turnout is an indicator of an illegitimate government, which no longer has the consent of the people to continue governing them (At least in a democracy). *Edit: If people chose to not vote (or engage in other political actions) the question should be "do we need this part of the government" not "how do we get more people to vote in this part of the government"
- macspoofing 7y ago
  >Democracy draws its power from the "consent of the governed" OK. I believe I'm arguing for consent. >not from the complacency of the subjects That's a red-herring. It has nothing to do with anything. >and if the people chose to not engage in the process, the government has no legitimate claim by which it can act on the people's behalf. If they choose to not engage because they don't trust the system .. then sure, that's a problem. If they choose to not engage because they are fine with any outcome - I don't see the problem. > Low voter turnout is an indicator of an illegitimate government You can't just say things. Sometimes that may be the case. And sometimes it may not. Typically in western nations, low voter turnout stems from a comfortable, prosperous life. >If people chose to not vote (or engage in other political actions) the question should be "do we need this part of the government" not "how do we get more people to vote in this part of the government" Sure. And I'm not against either.