17 ms·

Half of Americans Don’t Vote. What Are They Thinking?

45 points by ablekh 7y ago

ablekh 7y ago
Interesting article on extremely important topic. TL;DR: VOTE! Make your voice heard!
- pmart123 7y ago
  I often have thought that if we did switch to a popular vote over the electoral college, there would be an unpredictable turnout on both sides. My feeling is the Republican turnout in states like CA, NY and IL would increase. It’s hard for me to make judgements on small, republican dominated states having never lived in one, but I’m sure there would be a similar effect.
  - Ididntdothis 7y ago
    Totally agree. There should be at least some level of proportional representation, maybe a certain percentage of seats in the House. It's still hard to believe that in the 90s Ross Perot got 20% of the votes but this resulted in zero representation. No wonder people think that their votes don't matter. If you vote Republican in California it's pretty much a waste too. Personally I vote third party out of principle because I don't want to be forced to pick between two more or less corrupt choices. But in the current system it's almost hopeless to ever have a viable third party. I am pretty sure if a third party became more powerful the two established parties would gang up on them quickly to make sure their nice, comfortable duopoly keeps all the power.
    - true_religion 7y ago
      I don’t understand your example. Ross Perot was running for president without a party. How were house seats supposed to be awarded to him? It’s a totally different election, and multiple seats can’t be held by one person.
      - Ididntdothis 7y ago
        You are right. However the point I tried to make is that the current system kills third parties. Let’s say you get 30% in every district but win none you will have no representation. That’s just unhealthy.
        thu2111 7y ago
        PR at first sounds like a great idea. I used to support it. Watching how it plays out in Europe is instructive. What you see in PR systems is many parties, all of whom enter Parliament and none of whom have a majority. This leads to: - Long delays whilst they try to form alliances with each other, often unsuccessfully. Belgium went without a government for 541 days. Having no government for three-six months is quite common. - Alliances that make no sense at all and make a mockery of the parties political manifestos, e.g. right wing and left wing parties forming an alliance then not being able to actually do anything because they fundamentally don't agree on much. Germany used to have one of these. Then they attempted to form an alliance between the Greens (hard left socialists) and their libertarian party! As you can imagine, that didn't last long. - A very similar issue is that parties can win a lot of votes and still get no influence, because the other parties hate them so much they refuse to ever form an alliance with them. This happens to conservative parties a lot. For instance in the Netherlands the PVV is the second biggest party by vote share, but every other party refused to enter an alliance with them so their voters have no influence on the government. The alliance required to achieve this took 208 days to put together and 225 to formally start work in the cabinet, so the Dutch people were without representation for more than half a year because their politicians refused to contemplate compromising with the second largest party. [Modified] first past the post as used by the USA and the UK isn't perfect, but it results in elections having a clear winner who can then (mostly) implement what they said they would implement. In PR countries end up being ruled by what are effectively new political parties which didn't actually exist when voters went to the ballot boxes, may have policies that were never discussed during the election and which may still exclude the preferences of large chunks of the voters, including even the largest chunk.
    - schoen 7y ago
      > I am pretty sure if a third party became more powerful the two established parties would gang up on them quickly to make sure their nice, comfortable duopoly keeps all the power. It's also possible that that might happen without the intentionality or explicit coordination part. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law For example, the successful third party might supplant the role of one of the existing major parties, marginalizing it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_system#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_system#United_States
  - lenkite 7y ago
    Popular vote is fine as long as there is strict voter id enforced.
- ksec 7y ago
  >TL;DR: VOTE! Make your voice heard! What if none of the candidate represent your voice?
  - ablekh 7y ago
    In some elections (at least, in the United States), there is write-in option (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Write-in_candidate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Write-in_candidate). If one feels that it makes no sense or difference, then, I guess, not voting is a feasible option. They also might consider running for a public office themselves.
  - Natales 7y ago
    I often think about that when I'm waiting for my meal in a plane, seating in row 33 or higher. Odds are my choice won't be available when they finally get to me. I can choose not to eat, but it's more likely I will end up choosing from what's available. In essence: educate yourself, and choose what you believe would would be the least worst for the country as a whole.
    - mirimir 7y ago
      What if you were allergic to peanuts, and only stuff fried in peanut oil was available?
      - riahi 7y ago
        As a fun fact, peanut oil is so highly processed that most people with peanut allergy can eat it. https://acaai.org/resources/connect/ask-allergist/does-peanut-oil-cause-allergic-reactions https://acaai.org/resources/connect/ask-allergist/does-peanu...
        mirimir 7y ago
        I watched someone almost die from eating Chinese food fried in peanut oil. Maybe some peanut oil is pure enough, but there's no guarantee. The link is pretty clear about that, but your paraphrase is dangerous misinformation.
jb775 7y ago
Australia fines citizens $20 if they don't vote....I wonder what impact that would have on voting in the US?
- Moru 7y ago
  So how many percent is voting before and after the fine was put in place? Did it help any?
  - patrec 7y ago
    WP: > One of the strongest factors affecting voter turnout is whether voting is compulsory. In Australia, voter registration and attendance at a polling booth have been mandatory since the 1920s, with the most recent federal election in 2016 having turnout figures of 91% for the House of Representatives and 91.9% for the Senate.[77]
- cmroanirgo 7y ago
  NB: Voting is mandatory (in Oz) only if you're registered. However the government pesters you to register to vote when a) you turn 18 and b) you move. (It does this by monitoring driving licence registrations). You may also be called upon for jury duty at the same time. The only way to deregister is to move overseas (I checked: conscientious objection and religious reasons do not qualify)
  - docdeek 7y ago
    > "I checked: conscientious objection and religious reasons do not qualify” That’s not entirely accurate, though in practice it has been the case so far. Subsection 245(14) of the Electoral Act, and section 13A of the Referendum Act, provides that “the fact that an elector believes it to be part of his or her religious duty to abstain from voting constitutes a valid and sufficient reason for failing to vote.” [1] That said, you’re right that concientious objection to voting (or a personal moral objection) is insufficient reason, and there is yet to be a religious duty that has been held by a court to be sufficient reason to avoid the obligation to vote. Indeed, I think it would be tough to think of a religion where a central tenet is “don’t vote”. Perhaps there is one, but it doesn’t come easily to mind. [1]: https://www.aec.gov.au/About_AEC/Publications/backgrounders/compulsory-voting.htm https://www.aec.gov.au/About_AEC/Publications/backgrounders/...
keiferski 7y ago
Discussion on the fact that over half of the population doesn't vote is always built upon a number of assumptions. To name a few: - a democratic system in which everyone is "required" to participate in the political process is desirable state of affairs - the voting process is the best way of choosing these democratic representatives, as opposed to a civil servant exam, selection by lot (randomness, like jury duty), or some other type of system. Personally I like the idea of combining the two: pass an exam to be placed into a "potentials" pool, from which representatives are selected randomly. Then have a background check after that, etc. - That the best solution is to figure out why people aren't voting and change their mind, and not to develop a different method of selecting government officials It would be much more interesting (to me, at least) to explore other forms of government that maintain the benefits of civil liberties, open society, etc. without relying on the flawed media popularity contest that is voting. There is plenty of political and philosophical writing on this - we simply need to be willing to try it out.
- SamReidHughes 7y ago
  It depends on who it's desirable to. You can see this electoral system manipulation quite a bit in Singapore. They introduced mandatory voting to help the PAP win an election. Their system of group constituencies was introduced to stop competing parties from focusing on one race, or to make it harder for them to get their foot in the door, depending on who you ask. The system of presidential elections, and the requirements to be a presidential candidate (which includes things like having been in charge of a big organization), was designed to limit the damage if some opposition party wins an election. Not to mention all the restrictions on speech...
- iamaelephant 7y ago
  There is absolutely no way to prepare such an exam without (justified) accusations of bias.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - keiferski 7y ago
egypturnash 7y ago
There is barely any attention paid in this article to things like the fact that if you are in certain demographic segments you are very likely to be juggling several part-time jobs that schedule at the last minute, and have to deal with getting to the polls on a day that is not a mandatory holiday. Or with the way these demographics tend to be underserved by polling locations, and targeted by “vote fraud prevention” measures deliberately designed to disenfranchise them. There are a couple sentences that vaguely glance in this direction when it discusses that there can be a lot of bureaucracy around registering. Also not mentioned: prisoners and ex-cons are largely denied the right to vote. Florida lifting that on ex-cons should be interesting.
- btilly 7y ago
  Also not mentioned: prisoners and ex-cons are largely denied the right to vote. Florida lifting that on ex-cons should be interesting. Actually in most states they can vote. Florida is an important exception, but an exception still.
- kube-system 7y ago
  Prisoners, yes, but ex-cons largely do get back their right to vote. A lot of states have changed these laws in the past couple decades. 41 states do not permanently disenfranchise people for convictions. 6 states permanently disenfranchise some convicts (only for certain crimes or repeat offenders), and only 3 states disenfranchise all felony convicts. https://www.aclu.org/issues/voting-rights/voter-restoration/felony-disenfranchisement-laws-map https://www.aclu.org/issues/voting-rights/voter-restoration/...
  - egypturnash 7y ago
    Oh thanks, I am glad to be wrong about that one!
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
atom-morgan 7y ago
I was thinking, "Between Clinton and Trump, pass"
- clSTophEjUdRanu 7y ago
  Yikes
zebnyc 7y ago
My wife, who recently became an American, asked me what she should fill for her voter registration forms. My response was, "Living in the SF bay area, Your opinion would count only if you vote for the Democratic party primaries. The general elections don't matter". I am happy to be proven wrong but sadly I think this is the state of affairs now.
- hannibalhorn 7y ago
  You're getting downvoted, but I think it'd be quite interesting to know how many people don't bother just because they are registered where (in a federal election) it's basically a foregone conclusion. I live abroad but as my last residence was Texas, that's where my vote winds up counting (federal elections only) and it's a serious pain: - my ballot has to mailed back - I'm actually given multiple mailing addresses (it's unclear which I should actually use) - I live in a country without a traditional postal service and thus have to hand deliver my ballot to the the embassy or use an expensive private courier service (UPS, FedEx, etc.) - I have no way to know if my ballot was actually counted (did I fill some field out wrong, not print the "security envelope" right, use the wrong number of envelopes, etc. - the instructions are very unclear) And in the end ... well, Texas is pretty much a foregone conclusion anyway. It's discouraging, to say the least.
- toast0 7y ago
  For the presidential election in California? Yeah, really only the primary matters, and only for the two major parties, and only one of them has a real field of candidates this year. For other offices, many of these are highly contested, and the top two primary system makes primary voting more important than it used to be; especially since there are fewer voters, your vote has more weight. For all of measures and propositions, many of those are highly contested, and you should vote on those. Especially in California, where anything enacted by voters cannot be changed except by voters, unless its found unconstitutional by the courts. (Washington state legislators are apparentlty sometimes able to modify or repeal voter passed measures; other states may vary)
- clSTophEjUdRanu 7y ago
  Why do you think your vote doesnt matter?
Ididntdothis 7y ago
One simple change would be to vote on Sundays or make election Tuesday a mandatory holiday. Especially if you are low income and on a fixed schedule voting is very inconvenient.
- mjevans 7y ago
  Drop-off and mail-in ballots where there is ample time to fill out a ballot are also a great option. This exists where I live in (all cities), King County, WA; and probably other parts of the state too.
  - sircastor 7y ago
    We do mail in ballots in Oregon, and I see no reason it shouldn't be implemented in all states and jurisdictions. It solves so many issues with voting.
paulsutter 7y ago
On Twitter I saw a suggestion that the state with the highest voter turnout should have the first primary in the next election. This might create some incentive for people to turn out and vote (will post link if I can find the tweet)
- gxon 7y ago
  I saw that too. It would be interesting to see what different states do to try and increase voter turnout. Maybe some even give cash incentives to voters assuming that the economic benefit from being first/early in the primary outweighs the cost of the program.
- sircastor 7y ago
  Primary scheduling isn't set at the federal level. It's a state decision. New Hampshire has a law that says no other state's primary can occur before their own.
ryandvm 7y ago
Homo Economicus does not vote. That is, on an individual level, voting is not a rational activity. Look at it this way - let's say it takes you 15 minutes to drive to your polling place, 30 minutes to vote, and Lord knows how many hours to figure out which candidates you should even vote for. And what is the value of a single vote? Specifically, what is the chance that a single vote will change an election? Almost zero. Ergo, at the individual level, the effort of participating in the electoral process does not appear to be a rational choice.
- ggggtez 7y ago
  I think this is rather a simplification. It assumed the only value people obtain from voting is the actually election of the candidate. But humans get other value from voting. Social benefits, for example, by showing that you care about something. It has been shown that when you tell someone that you'll send a list of who didn't vote to their neighbors... Then it increases turn out.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- platz 7y ago
  And yet, it is only the folks that irrationally do vote that make the individual contributions that ultimately add up to something larger. I think this is a failure of the philosophy of individualism and the atomization of the individual from society, instead of an understanding where people take part and do things in society that primarily benefit society instead of themselves
- trappist 7y ago
  Voting is the easy part. If I'm to vote conscientiously, obviously I want to be informed on the issues, the candidates, the likelihood of the candidates to even pursue the fulfillment of their campaign promises and so on. This takes time and careful consideration. Under conditions of near certainty that my vote won't change anything, it's almost ridiculous for me to vote.
badrabbit 7y ago
To be clear: I am only stating this so anyone curious can know why people like me don't vote. I am not pushing any agenda. I don't vote on purpose, I see that as a vote against the typical choices given,none of which I can reconcile with my views in any of the important topics. Not stating a political opinion,just telling you what I am thinking when I don't vote. I have no plan on being in politics. I know better than to think a dual party system is significantly different than a single party system. I also believe the freedom and liberties of the west are mostly a result of a strong military and abundance of resources. Right now there are so many messed up things, I cannot vote for one thing and accept a lesser evil,not only because I believe you should never accept evil of any magnitude but also because the evils of either side are too extreme for me to be involved with. I don't mind paying taxes, contributing to society and trying to be come a better social person but the duopoly of US politics is a system I must vote against by not voting at all. I don't care which bad guy wins. I do think that the big parties should be broken up so that people actually have a voice. I like how parliamentary systems form a coalition of different parties to form a government. No confidence votes against the PM and it's never some guy running for office to rescue the country like in the US. It shouldn't be about any single person. I have no hope of any of this happening. I see the US swinginf from one extreme to the other tearing itself apart to the delight of its foes, why should I help destroy the one country keeping the balance of power in the world , so that wars break out and millions die? Will no one listen to history's plea? That's my perspective at least, I am sure others have their reason. But to a lesser degree at least, I think many just don't agree with the choices so they choose "none of the above". Look at any site with political leanings, centrists are mocked and hated by everyone. It's not so much the government system but the people themselves that can't grapple with magnitudes of the extreme sides they are taking.
- Retric 7y ago
  Voting 3rd party has vastly more impact than obtaining. A great deal of effort by both parties is spent to get poeple to stay home on Election Day, and not voting just tells them it’s working.
  - badrabbit 7y ago
meddlepal 7y ago
I live in a single party state. My vote doesn't matter.
olliej 7y ago
Voting takes hours, and you are not guaranteed time off to vote. Then there are the various state voter suppression acts that deliberately make it harder to vote (and IMO constitute an unconstitutional poll tax). Those all make voting expensive. Here’s what I’d want: states must be required to provide enough voting booths and facilities to keep voting lines to less than (say) 30 minutes. They must ensure that 90% (say) of the voting populace is with 30 minutes of a polling facility, and 80% within 30 minutes walking distance of such. States with voter suppression laws must provide IDs for free, and have similar to the above facilities for applying for those free IDs. Their turn around for those IDs must be timely, and delivery of the IDs should also be free. Note: any step that requires a citizen to pay money to get an voting ID is a poll tax, and therefore unconstitutional.
dpc_pw 7y ago
Voting is pointless. People are just brainwashed into believing it's so important (I don't know how else to call it: they are repeatedly told over and over again how important democracy is, and voting is like the biggest symbol of your democratic rights). Even just saying it is going to trigger a strong emotional reaction, similar to saying that God does not exists to devoted religious person. Down-votes ensured. :D In reality in the USA, it's much more effective to just donate $100 to some political interest group of yours, and be done with it.
mynameishere 7y ago
Perhaps they are thinking along correct mathematical lines. Their one vote will do nothing, but the time lost is very real.
ilaksh 7y ago
I am 42 and was going to vote for the first time, but my candidate (Andrew Yang) had to drop out. So I'm not voting.
jqpabc123 7y ago
Your vote don't matter --- in half the cases. Half the states are already decided with near certainty. California is voting for the Democratice candidate, South Carolina is voting for the Republican. If you vote for or against the pre-determined candidates in these "one party" states --- your vote don't matter. The only case where your vote might matter is in a swing state. The really amazing (and illogical) thing would be if more than 50% voted.
- Retric 7y ago
  House seats make a huge difference not just directly, but also how these lines are redrawn. Local elections are also vastly more important than most assume. Roads, schools, local policing, etc are the services that most affect people in their day to day lives and that’s mostly decided in local elections.
  - jqpabc123 7y ago
    I'm not arguing against all voting. Just pointing why it doesn't matter in a lot of cases. In the cases where it does matter, vote.
s9w 7y ago
Because a single vote doesn't matter. It's irrational to vote
- timbit42 7y ago
  If all of the people who thought that way voted, it would matter.
  - s9w 7y ago
    But they don't. One vote doesn't influence others - that would be magical thinking.
Natales 7y ago
Many people forget there are almost always a lot of other things in the ballot that can affect your life much more directly, and if you happen to live in a city of say, 30K people, your vote has a lot more impact than anything happening at the national level. Even if you choose not to vote for a national-level issue/candidate/party, at least do participate in things that affect your community.
BubRoss 7y ago
Who has the time to spend a few hours making sure they can vote, where to vote, and how to get there on a single weekday that isn't a holiday? Not people struggling to keep their lives together or anyone without some leverage in their life. Add in that the majority of the population in the US presidential have votes that are statistically irrelevant and I think parts of the problem become clear. Add to that the two party system that encourages the largest extremes from each side and most people probably don't actively want to vote for anyone. My simplistic refinement would be lots of candadites with points that could be put towards or against anyone in any amount. Maybe even more than one round of voting to eliminate someone mostly just taking votes away from someone else.
pengaru 7y ago
Obligatory Carlin on the topic of voting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIraCchPDhk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIraCchPDhk Edit: American Dream chaser: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-14SllPPLxY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-14SllPPLxY
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
trappist 7y ago
Imagine you succeed in persuading a large number of nonvoters to vote. Do you have some reason to suspect they would make better decisions, i.e. choose better candidates, than people who currently vote? I could never understand why voting per se was held to be a virtue. If you don't care or don't know what you're doing, why should I want you to vote?
sys_64738 7y ago
Not voting is a people's right. It's just you can't complain about the government when things don't work out.
- rascul 7y ago
  Complaining about the government is my right and it is not dependant on whether I voted or not.
  - sys_64738 7y ago
    Except when you complain and say you didn’t vote will lead to head shakes in your direction then you being ignored from that point on.
    - rascul 7y ago
      Does that actually happen? I've never seen it, and there's been plenty of times I've been potentially susceptible to such a practice. Maybe my arguments tend to be evaluated on a different metric.
      - sys_64738 7y ago
        You are special then!
prirun 7y ago
I don't vote: it is a contest of choosing the most convincing liar IMO. If we could vote every year, and vote them out when they do not fulfill their campaign promises, I'd be more inclined to vote. I'd much rather have a lottery system, because I trust the general population to be honest much more than I trust politicians to be honest.

45 points by ablekh 7y ago

ablekh 7y ago

Interesting article on extremely important topic. TL;DR: VOTE! Make your voice heard!

pmart123 7y ago
I often have thought that if we did switch to a popular vote over the electoral college, there would be an unpredictable turnout on both sides. My feeling is the Republican turnout in states like CA, NY and IL would increase. It’s hard for me to make judgements on small, republican dominated states having never lived in one, but I’m sure there would be a similar effect.
- Ididntdothis 7y ago
  Totally agree. There should be at least some level of proportional representation, maybe a certain percentage of seats in the House. It's still hard to believe that in the 90s Ross Perot got 20% of the votes but this resulted in zero representation. No wonder people think that their votes don't matter. If you vote Republican in California it's pretty much a waste too. Personally I vote third party out of principle because I don't want to be forced to pick between two more or less corrupt choices. But in the current system it's almost hopeless to ever have a viable third party. I am pretty sure if a third party became more powerful the two established parties would gang up on them quickly to make sure their nice, comfortable duopoly keeps all the power.
  - true_religion 7y ago
    I don’t understand your example. Ross Perot was running for president without a party. How were house seats supposed to be awarded to him? It’s a totally different election, and multiple seats can’t be held by one person.
    - Ididntdothis 7y ago
      You are right. However the point I tried to make is that the current system kills third parties. Let’s say you get 30% in every district but win none you will have no representation. That’s just unhealthy.
      - thu2111 7y ago
        PR at first sounds like a great idea. I used to support it. Watching how it plays out in Europe is instructive. What you see in PR systems is many parties, all of whom enter Parliament and none of whom have a majority. This leads to: - Long delays whilst they try to form alliances with each other, often unsuccessfully. Belgium went without a government for 541 days. Having no government for three-six months is quite common. - Alliances that make no sense at all and make a mockery of the parties political manifestos, e.g. right wing and left wing parties forming an alliance then not being able to actually do anything because they fundamentally don't agree on much. Germany used to have one of these. Then they attempted to form an alliance between the Greens (hard left socialists) and their libertarian party! As you can imagine, that didn't last long. - A very similar issue is that parties can win a lot of votes and still get no influence, because the other parties hate them so much they refuse to ever form an alliance with them. This happens to conservative parties a lot. For instance in the Netherlands the PVV is the second biggest party by vote share, but every other party refused to enter an alliance with them so their voters have no influence on the government. The alliance required to achieve this took 208 days to put together and 225 to formally start work in the cabinet, so the Dutch people were without representation for more than half a year because their politicians refused to contemplate compromising with the second largest party. [Modified] first past the post as used by the USA and the UK isn't perfect, but it results in elections having a clear winner who can then (mostly) implement what they said they would implement. In PR countries end up being ruled by what are effectively new political parties which didn't actually exist when voters went to the ballot boxes, may have policies that were never discussed during the election and which may still exclude the preferences of large chunks of the voters, including even the largest chunk.
  - schoen 7y ago
    > I am pretty sure if a third party became more powerful the two established parties would gang up on them quickly to make sure their nice, comfortable duopoly keeps all the power. It's also possible that that might happen without the intentionality or explicit coordination part. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law For example, the successful third party might supplant the role of one of the existing major parties, marginalizing it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_system#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_system#United_States
- lenkite 7y ago
  Popular vote is fine as long as there is strict voter id enforced.
ksec 7y ago
>TL;DR: VOTE! Make your voice heard! What if none of the candidate represent your voice?
- ablekh 7y ago
  In some elections (at least, in the United States), there is write-in option (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Write-in_candidate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Write-in_candidate). If one feels that it makes no sense or difference, then, I guess, not voting is a feasible option. They also might consider running for a public office themselves.
- Natales 7y ago
  I often think about that when I'm waiting for my meal in a plane, seating in row 33 or higher. Odds are my choice won't be available when they finally get to me. I can choose not to eat, but it's more likely I will end up choosing from what's available. In essence: educate yourself, and choose what you believe would would be the least worst for the country as a whole.
  - mirimir 7y ago
    What if you were allergic to peanuts, and only stuff fried in peanut oil was available?
    - riahi 7y ago
      As a fun fact, peanut oil is so highly processed that most people with peanut allergy can eat it. https://acaai.org/resources/connect/ask-allergist/does-peanut-oil-cause-allergic-reactions https://acaai.org/resources/connect/ask-allergist/does-peanu...
      - mirimir 7y ago
        I watched someone almost die from eating Chinese food fried in peanut oil. Maybe some peanut oil is pure enough, but there's no guarantee. The link is pretty clear about that, but your paraphrase is dangerous misinformation.

jb775 7y ago

Australia fines citizens $20 if they don't vote....I wonder what impact that would have on voting in the US?

Moru 7y ago
So how many percent is voting before and after the fine was put in place? Did it help any?
- patrec 7y ago
  WP: > One of the strongest factors affecting voter turnout is whether voting is compulsory. In Australia, voter registration and attendance at a polling booth have been mandatory since the 1920s, with the most recent federal election in 2016 having turnout figures of 91% for the House of Representatives and 91.9% for the Senate.[77]
cmroanirgo 7y ago
NB: Voting is mandatory (in Oz) only if you're registered. However the government pesters you to register to vote when a) you turn 18 and b) you move. (It does this by monitoring driving licence registrations). You may also be called upon for jury duty at the same time. The only way to deregister is to move overseas (I checked: conscientious objection and religious reasons do not qualify)
- docdeek 7y ago
  > "I checked: conscientious objection and religious reasons do not qualify” That’s not entirely accurate, though in practice it has been the case so far. Subsection 245(14) of the Electoral Act, and section 13A of the Referendum Act, provides that “the fact that an elector believes it to be part of his or her religious duty to abstain from voting constitutes a valid and sufficient reason for failing to vote.” [1] That said, you’re right that concientious objection to voting (or a personal moral objection) is insufficient reason, and there is yet to be a religious duty that has been held by a court to be sufficient reason to avoid the obligation to vote. Indeed, I think it would be tough to think of a religion where a central tenet is “don’t vote”. Perhaps there is one, but it doesn’t come easily to mind. [1]: https://www.aec.gov.au/About_AEC/Publications/backgrounders/compulsory-voting.htm https://www.aec.gov.au/About_AEC/Publications/backgrounders/...

keiferski 7y ago

Discussion on the fact that over half of the population doesn't vote is always built upon a number of assumptions. To name a few: - a democratic system in which everyone is "required" to participate in the political process is desirable state of affairs - the voting process is the best way of choosing these democratic representatives, as opposed to a civil servant exam, selection by lot (randomness, like jury duty), or some other type of system. Personally I like the idea of combining the two: pass an exam to be placed into a "potentials" pool, from which representatives are selected randomly. Then have a background check after that, etc. - That the best solution is to figure out why people aren't voting and change their mind, and not to develop a different method of selecting government officials It would be much more interesting (to me, at least) to explore other forms of government that maintain the benefits of civil liberties, open society, etc. without relying on the flawed media popularity contest that is voting. There is plenty of political and philosophical writing on this - we simply need to be willing to try it out.

SamReidHughes 7y ago
It depends on who it's desirable to. You can see this electoral system manipulation quite a bit in Singapore. They introduced mandatory voting to help the PAP win an election. Their system of group constituencies was introduced to stop competing parties from focusing on one race, or to make it harder for them to get their foot in the door, depending on who you ask. The system of presidential elections, and the requirements to be a presidential candidate (which includes things like having been in charge of a big organization), was designed to limit the damage if some opposition party wins an election. Not to mention all the restrictions on speech...
iamaelephant 7y ago
There is absolutely no way to prepare such an exam without (justified) accusations of bias.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- keiferski 7y ago

egypturnash 7y ago

There is barely any attention paid in this article to things like the fact that if you are in certain demographic segments you are very likely to be juggling several part-time jobs that schedule at the last minute, and have to deal with getting to the polls on a day that is not a mandatory holiday. Or with the way these demographics tend to be underserved by polling locations, and targeted by “vote fraud prevention” measures deliberately designed to disenfranchise them. There are a couple sentences that vaguely glance in this direction when it discusses that there can be a lot of bureaucracy around registering. Also not mentioned: prisoners and ex-cons are largely denied the right to vote. Florida lifting that on ex-cons should be interesting.

btilly 7y ago
Also not mentioned: prisoners and ex-cons are largely denied the right to vote. Florida lifting that on ex-cons should be interesting. Actually in most states they can vote. Florida is an important exception, but an exception still.
kube-system 7y ago
Prisoners, yes, but ex-cons largely do get back their right to vote. A lot of states have changed these laws in the past couple decades. 41 states do not permanently disenfranchise people for convictions. 6 states permanently disenfranchise some convicts (only for certain crimes or repeat offenders), and only 3 states disenfranchise all felony convicts. https://www.aclu.org/issues/voting-rights/voter-restoration/felony-disenfranchisement-laws-map https://www.aclu.org/issues/voting-rights/voter-restoration/...
- egypturnash 7y ago
  Oh thanks, I am glad to be wrong about that one!

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

atom-morgan 7y ago

I was thinking, "Between Clinton and Trump, pass"

clSTophEjUdRanu 7y ago
Yikes

zebnyc 7y ago

My wife, who recently became an American, asked me what she should fill for her voter registration forms. My response was, "Living in the SF bay area, Your opinion would count only if you vote for the Democratic party primaries. The general elections don't matter". I am happy to be proven wrong but sadly I think this is the state of affairs now.

hannibalhorn 7y ago
You're getting downvoted, but I think it'd be quite interesting to know how many people don't bother just because they are registered where (in a federal election) it's basically a foregone conclusion. I live abroad but as my last residence was Texas, that's where my vote winds up counting (federal elections only) and it's a serious pain: - my ballot has to mailed back - I'm actually given multiple mailing addresses (it's unclear which I should actually use) - I live in a country without a traditional postal service and thus have to hand deliver my ballot to the the embassy or use an expensive private courier service (UPS, FedEx, etc.) - I have no way to know if my ballot was actually counted (did I fill some field out wrong, not print the "security envelope" right, use the wrong number of envelopes, etc. - the instructions are very unclear) And in the end ... well, Texas is pretty much a foregone conclusion anyway. It's discouraging, to say the least.
toast0 7y ago
For the presidential election in California? Yeah, really only the primary matters, and only for the two major parties, and only one of them has a real field of candidates this year. For other offices, many of these are highly contested, and the top two primary system makes primary voting more important than it used to be; especially since there are fewer voters, your vote has more weight. For all of measures and propositions, many of those are highly contested, and you should vote on those. Especially in California, where anything enacted by voters cannot be changed except by voters, unless its found unconstitutional by the courts. (Washington state legislators are apparentlty sometimes able to modify or repeal voter passed measures; other states may vary)
clSTophEjUdRanu 7y ago
Why do you think your vote doesnt matter?

Ididntdothis 7y ago

One simple change would be to vote on Sundays or make election Tuesday a mandatory holiday. Especially if you are low income and on a fixed schedule voting is very inconvenient.

mjevans 7y ago
Drop-off and mail-in ballots where there is ample time to fill out a ballot are also a great option. This exists where I live in (all cities), King County, WA; and probably other parts of the state too.
- sircastor 7y ago
  We do mail in ballots in Oregon, and I see no reason it shouldn't be implemented in all states and jurisdictions. It solves so many issues with voting.

paulsutter 7y ago

On Twitter I saw a suggestion that the state with the highest voter turnout should have the first primary in the next election. This might create some incentive for people to turn out and vote (will post link if I can find the tweet)

gxon 7y ago
I saw that too. It would be interesting to see what different states do to try and increase voter turnout. Maybe some even give cash incentives to voters assuming that the economic benefit from being first/early in the primary outweighs the cost of the program.
sircastor 7y ago
Primary scheduling isn't set at the federal level. It's a state decision. New Hampshire has a law that says no other state's primary can occur before their own.

ryandvm 7y ago

Homo Economicus does not vote. That is, on an individual level, voting is not a rational activity. Look at it this way - let's say it takes you 15 minutes to drive to your polling place, 30 minutes to vote, and Lord knows how many hours to figure out which candidates you should even vote for. And what is the value of a single vote? Specifically, what is the chance that a single vote will change an election? Almost zero. Ergo, at the individual level, the effort of participating in the electoral process does not appear to be a rational choice.

ggggtez 7y ago
I think this is rather a simplification. It assumed the only value people obtain from voting is the actually election of the candidate. But humans get other value from voting. Social benefits, for example, by showing that you care about something. It has been shown that when you tell someone that you'll send a list of who didn't vote to their neighbors... Then it increases turn out.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
platz 7y ago
And yet, it is only the folks that irrationally do vote that make the individual contributions that ultimately add up to something larger. I think this is a failure of the philosophy of individualism and the atomization of the individual from society, instead of an understanding where people take part and do things in society that primarily benefit society instead of themselves
trappist 7y ago
Voting is the easy part. If I'm to vote conscientiously, obviously I want to be informed on the issues, the candidates, the likelihood of the candidates to even pursue the fulfillment of their campaign promises and so on. This takes time and careful consideration. Under conditions of near certainty that my vote won't change anything, it's almost ridiculous for me to vote.

badrabbit 7y ago

To be clear: I am only stating this so anyone curious can know why people like me don't vote. I am not pushing any agenda. I don't vote on purpose, I see that as a vote against the typical choices given,none of which I can reconcile with my views in any of the important topics. Not stating a political opinion,just telling you what I am thinking when I don't vote. I have no plan on being in politics. I know better than to think a dual party system is significantly different than a single party system. I also believe the freedom and liberties of the west are mostly a result of a strong military and abundance of resources. Right now there are so many messed up things, I cannot vote for one thing and accept a lesser evil,not only because I believe you should never accept evil of any magnitude but also because the evils of either side are too extreme for me to be involved with. I don't mind paying taxes, contributing to society and trying to be come a better social person but the duopoly of US politics is a system I must vote against by not voting at all. I don't care which bad guy wins. I do think that the big parties should be broken up so that people actually have a voice. I like how parliamentary systems form a coalition of different parties to form a government. No confidence votes against the PM and it's never some guy running for office to rescue the country like in the US. It shouldn't be about any single person. I have no hope of any of this happening. I see the US swinginf from one extreme to the other tearing itself apart to the delight of its foes, why should I help destroy the one country keeping the balance of power in the world , so that wars break out and millions die? Will no one listen to history's plea? That's my perspective at least, I am sure others have their reason. But to a lesser degree at least, I think many just don't agree with the choices so they choose "none of the above". Look at any site with political leanings, centrists are mocked and hated by everyone. It's not so much the government system but the people themselves that can't grapple with magnitudes of the extreme sides they are taking.

Retric 7y ago
Voting 3rd party has vastly more impact than obtaining. A great deal of effort by both parties is spent to get poeple to stay home on Election Day, and not voting just tells them it’s working.
- badrabbit 7y ago

meddlepal 7y ago

I live in a single party state. My vote doesn't matter.

olliej 7y ago

Voting takes hours, and you are not guaranteed time off to vote. Then there are the various state voter suppression acts that deliberately make it harder to vote (and IMO constitute an unconstitutional poll tax). Those all make voting expensive. Here’s what I’d want: states must be required to provide enough voting booths and facilities to keep voting lines to less than (say) 30 minutes. They must ensure that 90% (say) of the voting populace is with 30 minutes of a polling facility, and 80% within 30 minutes walking distance of such. States with voter suppression laws must provide IDs for free, and have similar to the above facilities for applying for those free IDs. Their turn around for those IDs must be timely, and delivery of the IDs should also be free. Note: any step that requires a citizen to pay money to get an voting ID is a poll tax, and therefore unconstitutional.

dpc_pw 7y ago

Voting is pointless. People are just brainwashed into believing it's so important (I don't know how else to call it: they are repeatedly told over and over again how important democracy is, and voting is like the biggest symbol of your democratic rights). Even just saying it is going to trigger a strong emotional reaction, similar to saying that God does not exists to devoted religious person. Down-votes ensured. :D In reality in the USA, it's much more effective to just donate $100 to some political interest group of yours, and be done with it.

mynameishere 7y ago

Perhaps they are thinking along correct mathematical lines. Their one vote will do nothing, but the time lost is very real.

ilaksh 7y ago

I am 42 and was going to vote for the first time, but my candidate (Andrew Yang) had to drop out. So I'm not voting.

jqpabc123 7y ago

Your vote don't matter --- in half the cases. Half the states are already decided with near certainty. California is voting for the Democratice candidate, South Carolina is voting for the Republican. If you vote for or against the pre-determined candidates in these "one party" states --- your vote don't matter. The only case where your vote might matter is in a swing state. The really amazing (and illogical) thing would be if more than 50% voted.

Retric 7y ago
House seats make a huge difference not just directly, but also how these lines are redrawn. Local elections are also vastly more important than most assume. Roads, schools, local policing, etc are the services that most affect people in their day to day lives and that’s mostly decided in local elections.
- jqpabc123 7y ago
  I'm not arguing against all voting. Just pointing why it doesn't matter in a lot of cases. In the cases where it does matter, vote.

s9w 7y ago

Because a single vote doesn't matter. It's irrational to vote

timbit42 7y ago
If all of the people who thought that way voted, it would matter.
- s9w 7y ago
  But they don't. One vote doesn't influence others - that would be magical thinking.

Natales 7y ago

Many people forget there are almost always a lot of other things in the ballot that can affect your life much more directly, and if you happen to live in a city of say, 30K people, your vote has a lot more impact than anything happening at the national level. Even if you choose not to vote for a national-level issue/candidate/party, at least do participate in things that affect your community.

BubRoss 7y ago

Who has the time to spend a few hours making sure they can vote, where to vote, and how to get there on a single weekday that isn't a holiday? Not people struggling to keep their lives together or anyone without some leverage in their life. Add in that the majority of the population in the US presidential have votes that are statistically irrelevant and I think parts of the problem become clear. Add to that the two party system that encourages the largest extremes from each side and most people probably don't actively want to vote for anyone. My simplistic refinement would be lots of candadites with points that could be put towards or against anyone in any amount. Maybe even more than one round of voting to eliminate someone mostly just taking votes away from someone else.

pengaru 7y ago

Obligatory Carlin on the topic of voting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIraCchPDhk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIraCchPDhk Edit: American Dream chaser: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-14SllPPLxY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-14SllPPLxY

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

trappist 7y ago

Imagine you succeed in persuading a large number of nonvoters to vote. Do you have some reason to suspect they would make better decisions, i.e. choose better candidates, than people who currently vote? I could never understand why voting per se was held to be a virtue. If you don't care or don't know what you're doing, why should I want you to vote?

sys_64738 7y ago

Not voting is a people's right. It's just you can't complain about the government when things don't work out.

rascul 7y ago
Complaining about the government is my right and it is not dependant on whether I voted or not.
- sys_64738 7y ago
  Except when you complain and say you didn’t vote will lead to head shakes in your direction then you being ignored from that point on.
  - rascul 7y ago
    Does that actually happen? I've never seen it, and there's been plenty of times I've been potentially susceptible to such a practice. Maybe my arguments tend to be evaluated on a different metric.
    - sys_64738 7y ago
      You are special then!

prirun 7y ago

I don't vote: it is a contest of choosing the most convincing liar IMO. If we could vote every year, and vote them out when they do not fulfill their campaign promises, I'd be more inclined to vote. I'd much rather have a lottery system, because I trust the general population to be honest much more than I trust politicians to be honest.