Why don't Americans vote?

[Reaper]

This is one thing that I am trying to figure out. It is a well known fact that the voter turnouts in recent elections, presidential or otherwise, are rather low. A quick look at the charts on PBS website shows that since the 60's, voter turnout has been on the decline: http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/votestats.html

 

It seems to me that people don't really seem to care anymore. Indeed, in an article about this on CNN, one guy who was interviewed, when asked this question, said "it doesn't make a difference to me". Other people I have asked said similar things and expressed similar views, that their either "too busy" or "i don't have time to think about it" and so on. Could cynicism help end our democracy here, after all nobody seems to take advantage of our right to vote.

[D H]

There is an even bigger problem than low turnout during general elections, and that is extremely low turnout in primary and local elections. The turnout rate for these elections hovers around 10% in my state.

 

Ideologues on both sides of the political spectrum do take advantage of their right to vote. They vote in general elections and in the primaries that lead up to the general elections. The 10% who do vote in primaries and local elections do not reflect the public at large. The skewed primary turnout is the driving reason that makes candidates from both parties kowtow to their extreme elements early on. The 10% who do vote in primaries choose candidates who do reflect their views and desires rather than the views and desires of the public at large. The 10% who do vote in primaries remember the promises made leading up to the primaries and expect the politicians to keep those promises once elected to office.

 

I am not blaming the 10% who do vote in primaries. The fault lies solely with the 90% who do not.

[Severian]

When they say "it doesn't make a difference to me" they are not necessarily saying they don't care who governs them. They may be saying that they see no practical difference between the candidates, i.e. they dislike them all.

 

I must admit if there was a general election this week (I am in the UK) I wouldn't know who to vote for because they are all crap. I nearly didn't vote last time because of this.

[CDarwin]

This is one thing that I am trying to figure out. It is a well known fact that the voter turnouts in recent elections, presidential or otherwise, are rather low. A quick look at the charts on PBS website shows that since the 60's, voter turnout has been on the decline: http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/votestats.html

 

It seems to me that people don't really seem to care anymore. Indeed, in an article about this on CNN, one guy who was interviewed, when asked this question, said "it doesn't make a difference to me". Other people I have asked said similar things and expressed similar views, that their either "too busy" or "i don't have time to think about it" and so on. Could cynicism help end our democracy here, after all nobody seems to take advantage of our right to vote.

 

These things move in trends, so "end our democracy" is probably a bit extreme, but low turnout certainly hurts it while it's in vogue.

 

High voter turnout after all doesn't positively correlate with better government (if less perceived corruption is any indicator).

 

Low voter turn-out absolutely does correlate with bad government, though. Look at Tennessee politics in the first half of the 20th Century. 10-20% votership meant that the Crump machine could dominate state politics with just the 200,000 Memphis votes that it was able to secure by paying poll taxes and bringing benefits to the city. Now we don't have political machines anymore, but the equivilant are lobbies and interest groups like unions or the balloting believers, and low voter turnout allows these groups to dominate politics.

[DrDNA]

If a person doesn't care enough to vote, why would anyone want them to vote?

Surely their decisions are not going to be thoughfully considered when this is the case.

[ParanoiA]

Maybe the Union is the problem? With such a centralized federal government, there's not alot of variety to be had in politics, hence little appeal or interest. If we had a more diverse political climate throughout the states, perhaps people would get more involved since it would effect them more directly, in general anyway.

 

If a person doesn't care enough to vote, why would anyone want them to vote?

Surely their decisions are not going to be thoughfully considered when this is the case.

 

I completely agree. Like the "Rock the Vote" swindle. Somebody, please quit telling uninformed people they have a voice at the voting booth. I want MY vote to count and it will be worth more if you don't vote.

[ParanoiA]

On the scale of how familiar a man can reasonably be about politics, is the average SFN member noticeably more informed than the 18-24 chronic non-voter?

 

Sure. I would think so. The average SFN member at least as an inkling for truth, in some capacity. That in itself can motivate gathering information.

 

Do you think the average SFN member can identify a picture of Cheyney? I don't think the average 18-24 chronic non-voter can.

[CDarwin]

I completely agree. Like the "Rock the Vote" swindle. Somebody, please quit telling uninformed people they have a voice at the voting booth. I want MY vote to count and it will be worth more if you don't vote.

 

I think that misses the point a bit. The problem is just that there are so many uninformed apathetic people who aren't voting.

[Sisyphus]

The same old reasons, I guess. The general perception is that there isn't much difference between the available choices, and one person's vote doesn't matter. Most of us go on living our lives in almost exactly the same way no matter who (read, any Democrat or Republican able to win a nomination) is in power, so there is some truth to it.

 

If you want more people to become more interested in politics, I think you need to:

 

1) Decentralize more issues to be as local as possible, so individuals have more say in their own situation.

 

2) Take active measures to encourage third parties, so as to counter the entrenchment of the two major power holders.

 

3) Radically revamp the way elections are held in general. The primary system is broken. The electoral college does more harm than good. And lack of of a system of runoff elections means people usually vote for who they think can win, not who they agree with the most.

[hotcommodity]

I've never voted before, but this year I've been thinking about it more seriously. Ron Paul caught my eye in the past year and a half or so, and I agree with alot of what he has to say. I doubt that I would vote for somebody that has alot of popularity behind them, so if I intend to vote for somebody less recognized, I have to ask myself : what are the chances of this person being elected? If they have a slim chance, I feel as tho' I'd be wasting my time casting a vote, as it would have little to no impact upon the results. On the national level, that's how I feel, but on the local level, I don't vote because I haven't had time to keep up with what's going on around me locally, and therefore, I feel as tho' my vote may cause more harm than good. As for people that simply do not care, as suggested in the opening post, it's probably better that they do not vote.

[Dak]

dunno about the US, but i get the impression that severian's take on the UK is correct.

 

People are 'disillusioned': with so few people voting for labour last time but labour still getting in, with no mechanism to forse polititians to actually uphold their manifestoes, with spin-doctors turning the whole 'answreable to the public' thing into a farce, and with polititians ignoring public oppinion at will anyway, I don't think people actually see the point. coupled with the fact that, as severian put it, 'they're all crap', I don't really blame people for not voting.

 

Last time, i voted lib-dem just to try to contribute towards breaking the 'two party' thing we've got going on, but other than that i had little prefference. I've no doubt that lib-dem would do as crap a job as labour or conservatives so i nearly didn't bother (they would, at least, fix the voting system so that you could no longer get the majority of power with only minority support, which is why i voted for them).

 

anyhoo, i'd guess that the feeling is possibly the same in the US? that there's little practical point in actually voting.

[ecoli]

I've never voted before, but this year I've been thinking about it more seriously. Ron Paul caught my eye in the past year and a half or so, and I agree with alot of what he has to say. I doubt that I would vote for somebody that has alot of popularity behind them, so if I intend to vote for somebody less recognized, I have to ask myself : what are the chances of this person being elected? If they have a slim chance, I feel as tho' I'd be wasting my time casting a vote, as it would have little to no impact upon the results. On the national level, that's how I feel, but on the local level, I don't vote because I haven't had time to keep up with what's going on around me locally, and therefore, I feel as tho' my vote may cause more harm than good. As for people that simply do not care, as suggested in the opening post, it's probably better that they do not vote.

 

Ron Paul has caught my eye as well... but I've never not voted before (albeit it's only been 2 years since I've been able to)

 

I've only regretted one of my votes. I voted for Eliot Spritzer because I thought he might shake things up. Turns out he's just as corrupt as the rest of them... and I've recently decided I don't like his policies.

 

I think local elections don't get as much media attention (which makes sense). But, except for the position of some judges, I've always researched all the available candidates through the local newspaper. I even researched the school board members.

 

It's hard, because at the local level esp, people tend to have similar policy, and you don't really see the affect of your votes.

 

With so much attention on the 2008 elections - the last date to register for a party to vote in the primaries in NY is tomorrow (don't worry RP fans, I registered republican this morning) - that I feel that the 2007 elections are going to get completely lost.

 

I haven't even seen as many signs for local offices as I usually do, and it's only a month away now.

[MrSandman]

I have to admit the country is becoming more apathetic through the years, and if it doesn't change we could get even deeper into our problems.

[ParanoiA]

I doubt that I would vote for somebody that has alot of popularity behind them, so if I intend to vote for somebody less recognized, I have to ask myself : what are the chances of this person being elected? If they have a slim chance, I feel as tho' I'd be wasting my time casting a vote, as it would have little to no impact upon the results.

 

Why do you feel your vote is wasted? It was counted and your guy lost. That isn't thrown away. That implies every losing vote was thrown away.

 

I've never really understood the mentallity of most people when it comes to elections. So many people are consumed with who they think is going to win, throwing their vote away and yadda yadda. I don't get it. I thought you were supposed to show up and vote for who YOU want in office. Not who you think is going to win. Not who you think has a chance. That's irrelevant.

 

I've never once considered my vote a throw away and I've always voted for unpopular (libertarian mainly) candidates. How would it NOT be thrown away if I voted for a "winner"? They weren't who I wanted to be in office so...

 

Ron Paul has caught my eye as well... but I've never not voted before (albeit it's only been 2 years since I've been able to)

 

I have skipped voting before. Before I learned about the other parties, I pretty much boycotted all involvement in the process. Now I look forward to making a statement with my vote, if nothing else. I would feel dirty if I voted for Thompson, or Romney because they "actually have a chance".

[DrDNA]

I would feel dirty if I voted for Thompson, or Romney because they "actually have a chance".

 

What??

[iNow]

What??

 

"What?" that they actually have a chance?

or

"What?" I can't understand why you'd feel dirty voting for them just for that reason?

[ParanoiA]

Yeah...what iNow said...

 

Oh, and I'll vote for Hillary Clinton over Guiliani. Hell, I'll vote for Michael Moore over Guiliani...

[DrDNA]

"What?" that they actually have a chance?

or

"What?" I can't understand why you'd feel dirty voting for them just for that reason?

 

Well, I don't think that either of them have much of a chance. But I meant, 'what?', why would you feel dirty voting for someone just because they have a chance?

 

If they have a chance, why should that make them automatically illegit?

 

Unfortunately, most people that I have voted for were classified by the mainstream as "never had a chance", but I would love to vote for someone that actually has a chance. Hell will probably freeze over first, but it would be nice..........

[ParanoiA]

But I meant, 'what?', why would you feel dirty voting for someone just because they have a chance?

 

Because it's not about voting for who has a chance. It's about voting for who you want to be in office. Whether they have a chance or not is irrelevant and undermines the intent of the election process.

 

Not saying this is your opinion here...but, it has always puzzled me why the chances of winning or losing has ANY bearing at all on who you vote for.

[DrDNA]

Because it's not about voting for who has a chance. It's about voting for who you want to be in office. Whether they have a chance or not is irrelevant and undermines the intent of the election process.

 

Not saying this is your opinion here...but, it has always puzzled me why the chances of winning or losing has ANY bearing at all on who you vote for.

 

I agree 110%, but I am saying conversely that just because they do have a chance is no reason not to vote for them etiher

Especially these days when the races have been so close.

 

I actively campaigned for Ross Perot and put up with the unelectable rhetoric nonsense the whole time. Then afterwards, the Bushites complained that we cost them the election. It was total bull. Perot actually carried our county.

 

My comment about Thompson's and Romney's chances were in reference to them actually being in the race at the end. I don't think they will be there in Nov, but I could be wrong, and if they are there, I would never say not to vote for them because they are "unelectable". That is a lie perpitrated by the mainstream.

[iNow]

it has always puzzled me why the chances of winning or losing has ANY bearing at all on who you vote for.

My guess would be that it relates in many ways to the psychology of gambling, and how we've evolved the tendency to avoid mistaken use of our resources, while simultaneously maximizing our chance at a good return on our investment.

 

 

You don't want to hunt a polar bear with nothin' but a pebble.

[ParanoiA]

I agree 110%' date=' but I am saying conversely that just because they do have a chance is no reason not to vote for them etiher

Especially these days when the races have been so close.[/quote']

 

But by voting for who I want to be in office makes their election chances irrelevant. Obviously I wouldn't change my vote because my guy suddenly got popular - I need not concern myself at all as to my candidates chances.

 

I actively campaigned for Ross Perot and put up with the unelectable rhetoric nonsense the whole time. Then afterwards, the Bushites complained that we cost them the election. It was total bull. Perot actually carried our county.

 

I liked Ross Perot. He had that attitude that I like - this humbled approach to fixing things: I may not have the solution, but I know someone who does.

 

A good leader knows his limitations and surrounds himself with good people that will hopefully fill that void. Perot struck me as that kind of guy.

 

My guess would be that it relates in many ways to the psychology of gambling, and how we've evolved the tendency to avoid mistaken use of our resources, while simultaneously maximizing our chance at a good return on our investment.

 

Ah, that's the word I was looking for and didn't know it: gambling. I was thinking along the lines of competition - trying to vote for the guy that's going to win. I can see your point there too.

[Dak]

Because it's not about voting for who has a chance. It's about voting for who you want to be in office. Whether they have a chance or not is irrelevant and undermines the intent of the election process.

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence_of_irrelevant_alternatives

 

eg: in an election between party's A and B, party A would get in (i.e., most people prefer A to B). however, add C to the mix and party B gets elected, even tho most people would have prefered party A over party B. this is because more people defect from voting for party A --> C than from B --> C, thus lowering A's vote to the point where B can win, even tho most people would still prefer party A over party B.

 

Given this, can you really hold it against people who would prefer party C, but who vote party A? can you even claim that it skews the process, as opposed to preventing the process from being skewed?

 

see also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theorem

[ParanoiA]

Given this, can you really hold it against people who would prefer party C, but who vote party A? can you even claim that it skews the process, as opposed to preventing the process from being skewed?

 

That only holds true if the intent of the election was to hire the guy with the most "weight" of support, rather than the most "numbers" of support. There's a word for this, I'm sure of it, but I'm drawing a blank.

 

What I mean is, if the intention of the voting system was to "get the guy least disliked" then it should have been set up as a weighted voting system. Since it wasn't, I'm left to conclude you're skewing it when you manipulate it so.

 

And yes I blame them. I externalize all of my problems.

[Dak]

That only holds true if the intent of the election was to hire the guy with the most "weight" of support, rather than the most "numbers" of support. There's a word for this, I'm sure of it, but I'm drawing a blank.

 

What I mean is, if the intention of the voting system was to "get the guy least disliked" then it should have been set up as a weighted voting system. Since it wasn't, I'm left to conclude you're skewing it when you manipulate it so.

 

You missed the point slightly. it's not just that A might be the least disliked party: it's that the majority of people would actually prefer A over B; however, if those who would also prefer C over A actually vote for C, then you end up with B, which is a stupid result, but there you go.

 

Given that, do you vote for C, knowing full well that:

 

1/ C won't get in, and

2/ you're increasing the lightlyhood of the B getting in, even tho most people (including you) would prefer A,

 

or do you vote A? iow, there's a lot of weight to the 'throwing your vote away' and 'a vote for C is a vote for B' arguments. if you vote C, you're actually increasing the chances of B getting in. If you vote A, you're increasing the chances of A getting in. If you want your vote's effect to accurately reflect your views, then you should vote A or B, not C, even if C is your prefference.

 

And yes I blame them. I externalize all of my problems.