6 ms·

Stop telling people to vote

50 points by fogus 14y ago

antidoh 14y ago
"Fuck you." Oh, OK then.
johnny22 14y ago
i always got the implied "we dont' care who you vote for" not just vote without being informed.
josnyder 14y ago
jwz's thesis, that uninformed people shouldn't vote, is overwhelmingly correct. I consider myself to be well-informed, politically speaking. Yet I voted in only 7 of 17 races on my ballot. I am not, for example, equipped to make informed choices for my jurisdiction's school board. All ballots should come with a "No vote" option. What would the difference be from just leaving it blank? Nothing, except that it would give uninformed people a box to tick so that they don't have to stray towards the more important ones. With that said, his stated corollary (to vote against propositions by default) is unhelpful and perhaps harmful. Many ballot proposals are stupid. Some aren't. As a voter, if you don't have an informed opinion, the right move is to leave it blank. Don't vote. Leave the job to those who have done their homework.
- saurik 14y ago
  Some argue that the idea is that, for x= 50 or 66 or whatever, you want "x% of all people to have heard about, understand, and agree with it" as opposed to "x% of people with an opinion agree with it". If you believe that (to be very explicit: I am not certain what I believe, so please do not start arguing with me personally about which is better; at best I oscillate), then the default should be "no". (Arguably, it might even make sense to have different defaults for different kinda of things, as we already do with different values of x; as an example, sometimes tax laws rwequire x=66 while other laws only require x=50.)
- bmelton 14y ago
  It's worse than that even. Having served as an election judge (and hence been obliged to assist those who needed it), many people needing help will ask "Which of these is the Republican option?" (where Republican = their party affiliation), even on issues that weren't particularly partisan, or national, or that even made sense. The tact there being that party affiliation was more important than expressing their own choices, which isn't something that I understand in the slightest, especially as how centrist most candidates are.
  - saraid216 14y ago
    It's pretty basic tribalism. "I am a Republican. Therefore, I will vote for the Republican option, unless I have an actual reason not to." In front of that, there's probably, "My parents were Republican. My family is Republican. My friends are Republican." And so on. %s/Republican/Democrat/g This isn't actually wrong, per se. It's a basic affirmation of trust in one's close network. Some people go to church without bothering to believe in God; they go because they've always gone and their parents go and their friends are there and they discuss the football game or whatever. They're passionate about things because all of their friends are passionate about it.
- raganwald 14y ago
  jwz's thesis, that uninformed people shouldn't vote, is overwhelmingly correct I rephrase that as "It is not good to have uninformed people voting." There are two ways to fix that: One is to work on the word "voting," the other is to work on the word "uninformed."
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- saraid216 14y ago
  > jwz's thesis, that uninformed people shouldn't vote, is overwhelmingly correct. Uh, unjustified assertion ftw? Please tell me the rest of that paragraph isn't supposed to be the justification.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
brennenHN 14y ago
The implied supremacy and paternalism in the post is pretty problematic. What is your threshold for informed? Should we have tests at the polls to make sure people have researched before they vote? Do you really want to make a case for an "informed" electorate instead of a more representative one? I know this post isn't saying to deny the vote to the "uninformed", just not to encourage them, but that sentiment implies a) that those people and their opinions are less valuable and b) that the atmosphere of excitement around civic duty which accompanies those posts is itself a problem. I would reject both of those premises.
- gojomo 14y ago
  Actually, the implied threshold is self-assessment. JWZ is suggesting: if you don't feel like you know or care enough to vote, feel free to not vote. That's actually pretty fair and efficient.
  - jkn 14y ago
    Looks like a very bad idea to me, since people who know more are more likely to think they don't know enough (e.g. Dunning-Kruger effect).
- alanhenry 14y ago
  Agreed. It's difficult to address the problem of underinformed and uninformed voting, which is indeed an issue, or even address the issue of people who care little about the political system and their voice in it, and therefore don't vote because they feel uninformed. It's also difficult to turn uninformed people into informed voters who are active in their communities. It's easy to say "fuck you" and tell people to stay home from the polls. It looks like the author of the piece prefers the easy road.
geuis 14y ago
I take a diametrically opposed viewpoint to this. Everyone should be required to vote. In Australia, among other nations, if you don't vote you pay a fine. Voting in the U.S. should be as mandatory as jury duty, if not more so. When you are required to do something, and when all of your peers, family, and friends are required to do the same thing, it generates a much greater discussion around it. There's this view in the US that voting is a right, not a privilege. When you treat something as non-valuable, then its much easier to take that thing away. Thinking of something as a privilege like borrowing your parents' car when you're young or having the freedom to worship your religion of choice or not makes it much more valuable to you. (Yes, I know that freedom of religion is a right. Don't be pedantic and quibble. People treat the issue like a privilege, whether its a Constitutional right or not.) In the US, the right to bear arms is considered sacred by many. While its referred to as a 'right', millions of Americans treat it like a privilege. When someone threatens to take that away, people are rather vocal about protecting it. So you're right, I won't tell you to vote. But I will do everything in my power to force you to vote, and to care about what you're being required to do. This is one time that telling people to have and care about an opinion is better for everyone.
- jacques_chester 14y ago
  > When you are required to do something, and when all of your peers, family, and friends are required to do the same thing, it generates a much greater discussion around it. I'm Australian. Compulsory voting does no such thing. Australians begrudge voting (and that we must fully enumerate our preferences). The pragmatic reason for having compulsory voting is to provide a better sample of what the population wants. In effect, to dilute the crazies. Voluntary voting is dominated by the question of motivation and ability. Those who are motivated and easily able to vote set the agenda. Ever wondered why US politics is dominated by so many basically tangential issues? Because whether you are pro or contra, abortion / marijuana / the death penalty / public health etc are classic issues to Get Out The vote. And the consequences continue. Ever wondered why US politics is about soaring rhetoric and heart-crushing negativity? Because the basic strategy is: inspire your own voters so they turn out ("Yes we can!", "America is at a crossroads") and make the other guy's voters disillusioned enough so that, while they won't vote for you, they'll just stay at home. Australian politics is more about transactional than transcendental issues, simply because the great bulk of people are required to vote whether they want to or not. To summarise: it does not greatly improve the quality of voters. It improves the quality of outcomes.
jiggy2011 14y ago
Ok, so please define "informed". Political opinion seems to suffer from an especially savage form of Dunning–Kruger. Often are the most steadfast and vocal in their opinions and the least objective. Let's say for example, the economy. Maybe one party suggests lowering taxes on the "middle class" to stimulate spending and the other guy wants to make sure we don't tax the "job creators" so that they don't move overseas. How am I supposed to know which is best? Do I need a degree in Keynesian economics or can I just listen to a few talking heads on the local news?
- dobro 14y ago
  >How am I supposed to know which is best? Do I need a degree in Keynesian economics or can I just listen to a few talking heads on the local news? You're not supposed to vote for what is "best". You are supposed to vote for what you WANT to happen. It could be the worst thing for the country but very good for you. That's OK too, if a tad selfish. Now, if you don't know what you want or what is good for you, you still get to decide. Anything major that will be legislated, like taxes, WILL affect you. So, what would you do if you don't know which option is the best? What you do in every similar situation in life: a) User your direct knowledge. b) Use your experience. c) Try to learn for other people that know that stuff. d) Discuss it with others in general. e) Read up on the issue. d) When everything fails, just your gut. You'll have to suffer any consequences anyway. And it's not like you can just have people with "degrees" and experts to make your opinion, or have the only right to vote on an issue. 1) For one, because those people also have biases, personal interests and hidden agendas. And even the non outright lying ones can be partisan, deluded, dogmatic, ideological or simply idiots with rich dads that bought them a good education. 2) Second, YOU'LL suffer from the consequences of any law, so it's YOUR decision to make, not theirs.
dreamdu5t 14y ago
Better yet: Stop voters telling me to obey whatever they voted on.
libovness 14y ago
There are more sophisticated arguments than this one for not voting. Among them, even if you believe in a particular cause, you can probably accomplish more for that cause in the hours it takes to vote by doing something other than voting: http://www.artoftheory.com/the-ethics-of-voting/ http://www.artoftheory.com/the-ethics-of-voting/ Another reason: Those who are not merely voting among party lines are childish, superficial, and even reptilian, when it comes to picking candidates: http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S19/28/30C37/ http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S19/28/30C37/
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
libovness 14y ago
There are more sophisticated arguments than this one for not voting. Among them, even if you believe in a particular cause, you can probably accomplish more for that cause in the hours it takes to vote by doing something other than voting: http://www.artoftheory.com/the-ethics-of-voting/ http://www.artoftheory.com/the-ethics-of-voting/ Another reason: Those who are not merely voting among party lines are childish, superficial, and even reptilian, when it comes to picking candidates: http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S19/28/30C37/ http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S19/28/30C37/
dllthomas 14y ago
"Corrolary: You should vote "NO" on every Proposition unless you actually know what the fuck you're talking about. The California Proposition system is asinine, and the way to do least harm is to reject by default." This is half correct, and that half is very much my policy. If the proposition is for something the legislature can and should be doing, I vote no; we are paying people to give these issues more time and attention than I can afford to. There are three places this differs from the above, though. 1) If the proposition deals with something that hugely favors incumbents to the point that the legislatures won't touch it for fear of job security. 2) If the proposition is for something the legislature can't do (Constitutional amendment that really needs to be a Constitutional amendment). 3) Most significantly, there are places (raising taxes, mostly) where we have tied the hands of our legislature with previous propositions, and require a proposition. For 3), my default position is yes; vote for decent legislators and let them do their jobs. For the first two, I try to make a point of learning enough about propositions of that nature that I can make an intelligent decision. If I can't, however, my default is to not vote on those measures. On propositions for things that the legislature can and should do, I agree whole-heartedly - vote no.
- paupino_masano 14y ago
  No! I'd rather people don't vote than vote no on something they don't understand... Unless you understand what you're voting for: don't vote. No vote is better than a misinformed one...
  - dllthomas 14y ago
    > No vote is better than a misinformed one... I precisely contend that, for certain categories of questions, that is not the case. If we want to try to pin this down with numbers somehow, it'll have to wait 'till morning though...
- waterlesscloud 14y ago
  California now has both legislative houses with supermajorities for Democrats. No excuses going forward.
LVB 14y ago
This is a non-issue, because they're clearly not listening (at least in the US). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout#International_differences http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout#International_dif...
- corin_ 14y ago
  48% turn-out doesn't mean people are listening, it could be that if so much effort didn't go into persuading people to vote that far fewer people would.
gojomo 14y ago
I'm happy to see someone take a stand against rampant, patronizing Non-Voter Intimidation. Non-voting can be a sign of a healthy system: "Everything's working pretty good; I'm OK with either choice, or whatever my fellow citizens select."
Aloha 14y ago
I'm quite fond of requiring people to take the citizenship test before being granted their rights as citizens - including voting.
kevinh 14y ago
It's amusing that jwz brings up the California Proposition system and says that you should vote no on everything when that itself is an uninformed statement to make. Even if you want to keep the status quo, simply voting no on every is not necessarily the correct decision. In California all referendums (still named propositions on the ballot) are flipped. That is, voting YES means that you want to keep the status quo and voting NO means you want to change it. I think uninformed people voting no across the board is what caused Proposition 40, a referendum dropped by those who originally proposed it, to get 27% voting no, despite absolutely no one being on the no side.
readymade 14y ago
News Flash Corner: there is always somebody who thinks your electoral opinion is line noise in the system.

50 points by fogus 14y ago

antidoh 14y ago

"Fuck you." Oh, OK then.

johnny22 14y ago

i always got the implied "we dont' care who you vote for" not just vote without being informed.

josnyder 14y ago

jwz's thesis, that uninformed people shouldn't vote, is overwhelmingly correct. I consider myself to be well-informed, politically speaking. Yet I voted in only 7 of 17 races on my ballot. I am not, for example, equipped to make informed choices for my jurisdiction's school board. All ballots should come with a "No vote" option. What would the difference be from just leaving it blank? Nothing, except that it would give uninformed people a box to tick so that they don't have to stray towards the more important ones. With that said, his stated corollary (to vote against propositions by default) is unhelpful and perhaps harmful. Many ballot proposals are stupid. Some aren't. As a voter, if you don't have an informed opinion, the right move is to leave it blank. Don't vote. Leave the job to those who have done their homework.

saurik 14y ago
Some argue that the idea is that, for x= 50 or 66 or whatever, you want "x% of all people to have heard about, understand, and agree with it" as opposed to "x% of people with an opinion agree with it". If you believe that (to be very explicit: I am not certain what I believe, so please do not start arguing with me personally about which is better; at best I oscillate), then the default should be "no". (Arguably, it might even make sense to have different defaults for different kinda of things, as we already do with different values of x; as an example, sometimes tax laws rwequire x=66 while other laws only require x=50.)
bmelton 14y ago
It's worse than that even. Having served as an election judge (and hence been obliged to assist those who needed it), many people needing help will ask "Which of these is the Republican option?" (where Republican = their party affiliation), even on issues that weren't particularly partisan, or national, or that even made sense. The tact there being that party affiliation was more important than expressing their own choices, which isn't something that I understand in the slightest, especially as how centrist most candidates are.
- saraid216 14y ago
  It's pretty basic tribalism. "I am a Republican. Therefore, I will vote for the Republican option, unless I have an actual reason not to." In front of that, there's probably, "My parents were Republican. My family is Republican. My friends are Republican." And so on. %s/Republican/Democrat/g This isn't actually wrong, per se. It's a basic affirmation of trust in one's close network. Some people go to church without bothering to believe in God; they go because they've always gone and their parents go and their friends are there and they discuss the football game or whatever. They're passionate about things because all of their friends are passionate about it.
raganwald 14y ago
jwz's thesis, that uninformed people shouldn't vote, is overwhelmingly correct I rephrase that as "It is not good to have uninformed people voting." There are two ways to fix that: One is to work on the word "voting," the other is to work on the word "uninformed."
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
saraid216 14y ago
> jwz's thesis, that uninformed people shouldn't vote, is overwhelmingly correct. Uh, unjustified assertion ftw? Please tell me the rest of that paragraph isn't supposed to be the justification.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

brennenHN 14y ago

The implied supremacy and paternalism in the post is pretty problematic. What is your threshold for informed? Should we have tests at the polls to make sure people have researched before they vote? Do you really want to make a case for an "informed" electorate instead of a more representative one? I know this post isn't saying to deny the vote to the "uninformed", just not to encourage them, but that sentiment implies a) that those people and their opinions are less valuable and b) that the atmosphere of excitement around civic duty which accompanies those posts is itself a problem. I would reject both of those premises.

gojomo 14y ago
Actually, the implied threshold is self-assessment. JWZ is suggesting: if you don't feel like you know or care enough to vote, feel free to not vote. That's actually pretty fair and efficient.
- jkn 14y ago
  Looks like a very bad idea to me, since people who know more are more likely to think they don't know enough (e.g. Dunning-Kruger effect).
alanhenry 14y ago
Agreed. It's difficult to address the problem of underinformed and uninformed voting, which is indeed an issue, or even address the issue of people who care little about the political system and their voice in it, and therefore don't vote because they feel uninformed. It's also difficult to turn uninformed people into informed voters who are active in their communities. It's easy to say "fuck you" and tell people to stay home from the polls. It looks like the author of the piece prefers the easy road.

geuis 14y ago

I take a diametrically opposed viewpoint to this. Everyone should be required to vote. In Australia, among other nations, if you don't vote you pay a fine. Voting in the U.S. should be as mandatory as jury duty, if not more so. When you are required to do something, and when all of your peers, family, and friends are required to do the same thing, it generates a much greater discussion around it. There's this view in the US that voting is a right, not a privilege. When you treat something as non-valuable, then its much easier to take that thing away. Thinking of something as a privilege like borrowing your parents' car when you're young or having the freedom to worship your religion of choice or not makes it much more valuable to you. (Yes, I know that freedom of religion is a right. Don't be pedantic and quibble. People treat the issue like a privilege, whether its a Constitutional right or not.) In the US, the right to bear arms is considered sacred by many. While its referred to as a 'right', millions of Americans treat it like a privilege. When someone threatens to take that away, people are rather vocal about protecting it. So you're right, I won't tell you to vote. But I will do everything in my power to force you to vote, and to care about what you're being required to do. This is one time that telling people to have and care about an opinion is better for everyone.

jacques_chester 14y ago
> When you are required to do something, and when all of your peers, family, and friends are required to do the same thing, it generates a much greater discussion around it. I'm Australian. Compulsory voting does no such thing. Australians begrudge voting (and that we must fully enumerate our preferences). The pragmatic reason for having compulsory voting is to provide a better sample of what the population wants. In effect, to dilute the crazies. Voluntary voting is dominated by the question of motivation and ability. Those who are motivated and easily able to vote set the agenda. Ever wondered why US politics is dominated by so many basically tangential issues? Because whether you are pro or contra, abortion / marijuana / the death penalty / public health etc are classic issues to Get Out The vote. And the consequences continue. Ever wondered why US politics is about soaring rhetoric and heart-crushing negativity? Because the basic strategy is: inspire your own voters so they turn out ("Yes we can!", "America is at a crossroads") and make the other guy's voters disillusioned enough so that, while they won't vote for you, they'll just stay at home. Australian politics is more about transactional than transcendental issues, simply because the great bulk of people are required to vote whether they want to or not. To summarise: it does not greatly improve the quality of voters. It improves the quality of outcomes.

jiggy2011 14y ago

Ok, so please define "informed". Political opinion seems to suffer from an especially savage form of Dunning–Kruger. Often are the most steadfast and vocal in their opinions and the least objective. Let's say for example, the economy. Maybe one party suggests lowering taxes on the "middle class" to stimulate spending and the other guy wants to make sure we don't tax the "job creators" so that they don't move overseas. How am I supposed to know which is best? Do I need a degree in Keynesian economics or can I just listen to a few talking heads on the local news?

dobro 14y ago
>How am I supposed to know which is best? Do I need a degree in Keynesian economics or can I just listen to a few talking heads on the local news? You're not supposed to vote for what is "best". You are supposed to vote for what you WANT to happen. It could be the worst thing for the country but very good for you. That's OK too, if a tad selfish. Now, if you don't know what you want or what is good for you, you still get to decide. Anything major that will be legislated, like taxes, WILL affect you. So, what would you do if you don't know which option is the best? What you do in every similar situation in life: a) User your direct knowledge. b) Use your experience. c) Try to learn for other people that know that stuff. d) Discuss it with others in general. e) Read up on the issue. d) When everything fails, just your gut. You'll have to suffer any consequences anyway. And it's not like you can just have people with "degrees" and experts to make your opinion, or have the only right to vote on an issue. 1) For one, because those people also have biases, personal interests and hidden agendas. And even the non outright lying ones can be partisan, deluded, dogmatic, ideological or simply idiots with rich dads that bought them a good education. 2) Second, YOU'LL suffer from the consequences of any law, so it's YOUR decision to make, not theirs.

dreamdu5t 14y ago

Better yet: Stop voters telling me to obey whatever they voted on.

libovness 14y ago

There are more sophisticated arguments than this one for not voting. Among them, even if you believe in a particular cause, you can probably accomplish more for that cause in the hours it takes to vote by doing something other than voting: http://www.artoftheory.com/the-ethics-of-voting/ http://www.artoftheory.com/the-ethics-of-voting/ Another reason: Those who are not merely voting among party lines are childish, superficial, and even reptilian, when it comes to picking candidates: http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S19/28/30C37/ http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S19/28/30C37/

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

libovness 14y ago

dllthomas 14y ago

"Corrolary: You should vote "NO" on every Proposition unless you actually know what the fuck you're talking about. The California Proposition system is asinine, and the way to do least harm is to reject by default." This is half correct, and that half is very much my policy. If the proposition is for something the legislature can and should be doing, I vote no; we are paying people to give these issues more time and attention than I can afford to. There are three places this differs from the above, though. 1) If the proposition deals with something that hugely favors incumbents to the point that the legislatures won't touch it for fear of job security. 2) If the proposition is for something the legislature can't do (Constitutional amendment that really needs to be a Constitutional amendment). 3) Most significantly, there are places (raising taxes, mostly) where we have tied the hands of our legislature with previous propositions, and require a proposition. For 3), my default position is yes; vote for decent legislators and let them do their jobs. For the first two, I try to make a point of learning enough about propositions of that nature that I can make an intelligent decision. If I can't, however, my default is to not vote on those measures. On propositions for things that the legislature can and should do, I agree whole-heartedly - vote no.

paupino_masano 14y ago
No! I'd rather people don't vote than vote no on something they don't understand... Unless you understand what you're voting for: don't vote. No vote is better than a misinformed one...
- dllthomas 14y ago
  > No vote is better than a misinformed one... I precisely contend that, for certain categories of questions, that is not the case. If we want to try to pin this down with numbers somehow, it'll have to wait 'till morning though...
waterlesscloud 14y ago
California now has both legislative houses with supermajorities for Democrats. No excuses going forward.

LVB 14y ago

This is a non-issue, because they're clearly not listening (at least in the US). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout#International_differences http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout#International_dif...

corin_ 14y ago
48% turn-out doesn't mean people are listening, it could be that if so much effort didn't go into persuading people to vote that far fewer people would.

gojomo 14y ago

I'm happy to see someone take a stand against rampant, patronizing Non-Voter Intimidation. Non-voting can be a sign of a healthy system: "Everything's working pretty good; I'm OK with either choice, or whatever my fellow citizens select."

Aloha 14y ago

I'm quite fond of requiring people to take the citizenship test before being granted their rights as citizens - including voting.

kevinh 14y ago

It's amusing that jwz brings up the California Proposition system and says that you should vote no on everything when that itself is an uninformed statement to make. Even if you want to keep the status quo, simply voting no on every is not necessarily the correct decision. In California all referendums (still named propositions on the ballot) are flipped. That is, voting YES means that you want to keep the status quo and voting NO means you want to change it. I think uninformed people voting no across the board is what caused Proposition 40, a referendum dropped by those who originally proposed it, to get 27% voting no, despite absolutely no one being on the no side.

readymade 14y ago

News Flash Corner: there is always somebody who thinks your electoral opinion is line noise in the system.