Should You Vote If You Can?

[angrysoba]

On another thread, in the USA Politics forum, Sez replied to another poster who said they wouldn't vote in the 2012 elections:

The folks staying here thank you for your efforts.

"Here" is the Arlington Cemetery, which is where US servicemen and women are buried.

Do you think that people should vote if they can? If you are allowed to vote in your country is it not an insult to those who died for your country if you do not vote in your country's elections?

[Personally, I find it a bit of a stretch to say that each person at Arlington was fighting to ensure freedom. In fact, even if it were true that each person was genuinely fighting for the Constitution, I don't seem to remember anywhere in the Constitution enshrining the right to vote, only the conditions under which people may not be prevented from voting.]

By the way, in Australia, I hear that it is illegal not to vote if you can. Is there anything undemocratic about that too?

Any thoughts?

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

That argument is silly. The two big non-voter arguments I hear are the composition fallacy and the "send a message" one. The former is just wrong and the latter naive. This is one of the few direct powers you have in the government that rules you. I would hardly think that people need a reason to vote beyond that.

Of course, there may be cases where there just isn't enough information to make an informed decision, or you really can't decide between two equally flawed candidates.

 

[SezMe]

Thanks for starting the new thread, angrysoba.

The relevant part of my last post from the previous thread:

In the USA, in 2012 why shouldn't one feel guilty for not voting?

 

[Fishstick]

Thanks for starting the new thread, angrysoba.

The relevant part of my last post from the previous thread:

If there are only two realistic choices for voting, and neither aligns with your political views, what are you to do?

 

[Beerina]

Do what I do -- vote for who will do the least damage.

In the last election I voted for Obama over McCain because I was disgusted with McCain's efforts to regulate free speech.

I...goofed.

 

[arthwollipot]

Do you think that people should vote if they can?

Yes.

If you are allowed to vote in your country is it not an insult to those who died for your country if you do not vote in your country's elections?

No.

By the way, in Australia, I hear that it is illegal not to vote if you can. Is there anything undemocratic about that too?

No.

There are a lot of reasons why voting is good. Most of them don't involve disrespecting the military. And compulsory voting is pretty much the opposite of "undemocratic".

 

[Wildy]

Do you think that people should vote if they can?

Yes.

If you are allowed to vote in your country is it not an insult to those who died for your country if you do not vote in your country's elections?

No.

By the way, in Australia, I hear that it is illegal not to vote if you can. Is there anything undemocratic about that too?

Yes, voting is compulsory. The punishment for not voting is a $20 fine. Perhaps the AEC would consider hiring the Slenderman to collect the fines.

No there is nothing undermocratic about it. As wolli said it's pretty much the opposite of undemocratic since you get results that reflect a majority of people.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

[The problem with voting is who to vote for? In every election, it's always a choice between the mainstram parties (who are all but the same, regardless of the red, blue or yellow tie that they wear). Don't even bother voting for third parties, because they barely register in the election.

 

[Skepticemea]

I think it should be compulsory for those eligible to vote to do so.

I think it should be mandatory for the ballot to contain a "none of the above" option.

 

[angrysoba]

I think it would be undemocratic if there was no option to either abstain or spoil your ballot.

I expect it is mandatory to vote in North Korea or some other countries where 99.99 per cent or higher turnouts are regularly recorded.

But if you have to vote for one of the parties on the ballot then it could easily be undemocratic.

 

[crimresearch]

On another thread, in the USA Politics forum, Sez replied to another poster who said they wouldn't vote in the 2012 elections:



"Here" is the Arlington Cemetery, which is where US servicemen and women are buried.

Do you think that people should vote if they can? If you are allowed to vote in your country is it not an insult to those who died for your country if you do not vote in your country's elections?

[Personally, I find it a bit of a stretch to say that each person at Arlington was fighting to ensure freedom. In fact, even if it were true that each person was genuinely fighting for the Constitution, I don't seem to remember anywhere in the Constitution enshrining the right to vote, only the conditions under which people may not be prevented from voting.]

By the way, in Australia, I hear that it is illegal not to vote if you can. Is there anything undemocratic about that too?

Any thoughts?

I think that if you aren't a resident of Arlington, you shouldn't presume to speak for them politically.

And voting with your feet is about as democratic as it gets.

 

[Trakar]

On another thread, in the USA Politics forum, Sez replied to another poster who said they wouldn't vote in the 2012 elections:

"Here" is the Arlington Cemetery, which is where US servicemen and women are buried.

Do you think that people should vote if they can? If you are allowed to vote in your country is it not an insult to those who died for your country if you do not vote in your country's elections?...

All citizens defend the nation and what it stands for, especially in time of war, not just the honored dead who died in combat. Additionally, the right to vote includes the personal liberty to chose whether or not to exercise that right. I personally believe that everyone should participate in the process but I don't believe that trying to establish or insinuate compulsory participation is proper or correct. I served with distinction and honor, but I did so to maintain and increase my fellow citizen's options, rights and liberties, not to restrict or dictate how they must exercise those options, rights and liberties. As has been said by others of more substance and significance than my own - I may disagree with others' opinions but I have given of my life to defend others' rights to hold and express their opinions. In my opinion, those who try to force their version of "liberty" upon others are rather missing the main definition inherent to the concept of liberty in the first place.

 

[angrysoba]

All citizens defend the nation and what it stands for, especially in time of war, not just the honored dead who died in combat. Additionally, the right to vote includes the personal liberty to chose whether or not to exercise that right. I personally believe that everyone should participate in the process but I don't believe that trying to establish or insinuate compulsory participation is proper or correct. I served with distinction and honor, but I did so to maintain and increase my fellow citizen's options, rights and liberties, not to restrict or dictate how they must exercise those options, rights and liberties. As has been said by others of more substance and significance than my own - I may disagree with others' opinions but I have given of my life to defend others' rights to hold and express their opinions. In my opinion, those who try to force their version of "liberty" upon others are rather missing the main definition inherent to the concept of liberty in the first place.

Thanks, I think that is well-put.

 

[Trakar]

If there are only two realistic choices for voting, and neither aligns with your political views, what are you to do?

I assume you mean that there are only two main party candidates and that neither of them reflect your views. you should probably vote for the non-main party candidate that does most closely align with your views. The only way that the main parties ever change to include other perspectives is when they are shown that people believe enough in those views and perspectives that they are willing to vote in support of them. If you are willing to compromise what you believe in to support a candidate who doesn't share your beliefs, why should any party or candidate cater to your preferences?

 

[theprestige]

No there is nothing undermocratic about it. As wolli said it's pretty much the opposite of undemocratic since you get results that reflect a majority of people.

How is abstention undemocratic?

If only 20% of people bother to vote, that tells me that 80% of citizens have found more important and satisfying things to do with their resources. That's just as democratic an outcome as any other.

To me, this is as it should be. 20% voter turnout means a government that is not particularly intrusive, controversial, or burdensome to its people.

Ideally a government should be trivial, if not irrelevant, to the daily lives of its citizens. To the extent that it /is/ relevant, it should be locally relevant, so that each local citizen who chooses to vote actually has an impact on the outcome of whatever it is that is affecting his daily life.

This constant obsession with what the government is doing and what we have to do about it, is unhealthy.

People should be allowed to decide for themselves if voting matters. And of course they should be able to vote any time they decide it matters. But it shouldn't matter all the time, and I'm against government intrusions into that decision, forcing citizens to pretend it matters when it really doesn't (or shouldn't).

 

[Damien Evans]

If there are only two realistic choices for voting, and neither aligns with your political views, what are you to do?

Vote for one of the unrealistic choices.


I would have thought that was obvious.

 

[Damien Evans]

[The problem with voting is who to vote for? In every election, it's always a choice between the mainstram parties (who are all but the same, regardless of the red, blue or yellow tie that they wear). Don't even bother voting for third parties, because they barely register in the election.

Only because of attitudes like that.

 

[crimresearch]

Only because of attitudes like that.

That, and the actual history.

Either way, there is no political party out there whose politicians are immune to the axioms of corruption and power.

 

[theprestige]

Only because of attitudes like that.

I don't know about, say Australia, but here in the US it seems to be because third parties (and their voters) seem to have the attitude that any third party should automatically get nationwide status and recognition, just because they're fielding a candidate for national office.

I think that third parties would be a lot less laughable if they focused on local and regional elections. If you can't even convince a single district in a single city to elect a Green candidate to a single city council seat, you have no business running for state office, let alone national office. And yet the Green party always seems to want to skip all those intermediate steps, and get free credibility at the national level.

 

[Complexity]

If there are only two realistic choices for voting, and neither aligns with your political views, what are you to do?

Write in someone you actually would like to see in that office.