Why don't Americans vote?

[ParanoiA]

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.

 

No, no, I get what you're saying. I'm just saying that by using a plurality voting system suggests a different intent than range voting.

 

By voting for candidate A over C, for fear of B getting the win, you're basically circumventing the design intent of plurality voting (if I'm using that term correctly...I was just reading up on this).

 

This 3 party scenario you're presenting is the people basically voting as if our electoral process is looking for a "range" winner over a "plural" winner. And I'm saying that is skewing the process. And yes, I get why they're doing it and I hear that excuse from many, but I just can't play along.

 

Not to mention that the more votes these 3rd party guys get, the more encouraging it becomes for others. Now if they'd just come up with some decent stock...sheez...

[Dak]

No, no, I get what you're saying. I'm just saying that by using a plurality voting system suggests a different intent than range voting.

 

What are you taking to be the intent of plurality voting?

 

Not to mention that the more votes these 3rd party guys get, the more encouraging it becomes for others. Now if they'd just come up with some decent stock...sheez...

 

unless, of course, for a variety of reasons votes for the third-party don't count for much. compare the % of the vote for the (orange) third party compared to the % of the seats (and thus power) of the third party in the uk (it starts getting rediculouse from '74 onwards):

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/vote2005/past_elections/html/default.stm

 

Probably a combination of the wastage of votes for the third-party, and the way the uk is divvied up into constituancies. as a 'bonus grumble', note also that in oct '74, conservative actually got a slightly higher % of the vote, whereas labour got a slightly higher % of the seats.

 

So, yeah, I sympathise with people who don't vote because they don't think it'll actually make a difference.

[DrDNA]

Yeah...what iNow said...

 

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

 

 

If those are my only 2 choices, I probably will be just another American that doesn't vote.

[ParanoiA]

What are you taking to be the intent of plurality voting?

 

To determine which candidate is preferred as an absolute favorite. As opposed to determining which candidate has the most discrete units of total preference. Personally, I prefer the latter. But we don't have that kind of system here.

 

So, yeah, I sympathise with people who don't vote because they don't think it'll actually make a difference.

 

I do too, actually. That's why I've convinced myself I'm sending a message when I vote. I really do enjoy it.

[Dak]

To determine which candidate is preferred as an absolute favorite. As opposed to determining which candidate has the most discrete units of total preference. Personally, I prefer the latter. But we don't have that kind of system here.

 

In that case, you could argue that pluarlity voting itself is flawed if it can give a result that the majority of people would agree isn't as good as one of the other possible results (e.g., B wins, even tho most people would prefer A over B).

 

either way, my point was mainly that if the voting system wasn't so shoddy, maybe more people would vote. "go on, vote!-- it probably won't make a difference, and, if it does, it probably won't be the difference that you wanted to make" really isn't that much of an incentive to actually vote.

 

I do too, actually. That's why I've convinced myself I'm sending a message when I vote. I really do enjoy it.

 

I'd say the same, but i agree with them too much

[ParanoiA]

either way, my point was mainly that if the voting system wasn't so shoddy, maybe more people would vote. "go on, vote!-- it probably won't make a difference, and, if it does, it probably won't be the difference that you wanted to make" really isn't that much of an incentive to actually vote.

 

True. I agree with that. Most people I know complain about it. I would like to see us change to a multi-vote, weighted system, to get the 3rd party candidates a better chance and everyone's vote at least feels a little more valuable - well, at least it's not an all-or-nothing single vote.

 

I don't know if that would help with voter turnout or not.

[iNow]

Any thoughts here on repealing the electoral college?

 

No provision or constitutional law requires that electors vote in accordance with the popular vote of their state.

 

There are a total of 538 people in the electoral college, and they are selected by state officials.

 

Ultimately, it is a group of 270 electors (this would be a majority in the total of 538) who choose the president.

 

 

 

Maybe more people would vote if they felt that the connection between their vote and the outcome of the election were more "raw" and untainted.

 

Anyone remember 2000? Sort of leaves a bad taste in one's mouth.

[Reaper]

Any thoughts here on repealing the electoral college?

 

No provision or constitutional law requires that electors vote in accordance with the popular vote of their state.

 

There are a total of 538 people in the electoral college, and they are selected by state officials.

 

Ultimately, it is a group of 270 electors (this would be a majority in the total of 538) who choose the president.

 

 

 

Maybe more people would vote if they felt that the connection between their vote and the outcome of the election were more "raw" and untainted.

 

Anyone remember 2000? Sort of leaves a bad taste in one's mouth.

 

 

I think the electoral college was put in place to prevent presidents from being elected based purely on their popularity, as that can cause obvious problems.

[iNow]

So, you suggest the electoral college is there to prevent people like Paris Hilton from taking office?

[Reaper]

either way, my point was mainly that if the voting system wasn't so shoddy, maybe more people would vote. "go on, vote!-- it probably won't make a difference, and, if it does, it probably won't be the difference that you wanted to make" really isn't that much of an incentive to actually vote.

 

 

 

I'd say the same, but i agree with them too much

 

Yeah, I actually do kinda feel that way here in the States. Now that I am of voting age, I've been mulling over whether or not to vote. I just don't see any conceivable way that I could actually make a difference by voting, I have long since learned that what the parties promise are not quite what they intend to do, or will actually end up doing......

 

In any case, there are always the same two parties that end up going up there, and the current candidates aren't really all that great. And I feel the democrats are way too superficial with the choices of candidates.

 

So, you suggest the electoral college is there to prevent people like Paris Hilton from taking office?

 

Sort of. I just remember that from my American history studies, the authors of the constitution originally put it there to prevent the elections based purely on popularity because at the time there weren't a lot of people who were educated.

 

Also, to prevent a tyranny of the majority scenario from popping up.

 

---------------------------------------------------------

 

Of course, nowadays who gets elected is based on whether or not they have lots of money, so its not likely that our best interests will be served in any time in the near future.

[hotcommodity]

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...

 

 

You have a point, and I suppose I'm a little naive when it comes to the importance of voting. But lets say I research all of the candidates, follow all of the debates, and subsequently vote. How many voters would give that same consideration to each candidate in an effort to make an informed decision? I think alot of Americans, if not most, think of voting as nothing more than an American tradition, like the 4th of July. They label themselves "Republican," "conservative," "Democrat," and "liberal," and they let these titles, rather than information, decide their vote. I'm not very confident in the opinion of the masses. And I can't help but think that my vote would effectively work to counterbalance the votes cast by those who simply don't care to make an informed decision.

[Dak]

True. I agree with that. Most people I know complain about it. I would like to see us change to a multi-vote, weighted system, to get the 3rd party candidates a better chance and everyone's vote at least feels a little more valuable - well, at least it's not an all-or-nothing single vote.

 

Yup. i'm quite interested in the idea of proportional representation, so if party C gets x% of the vote, party C gets x% of the power (and if you're mainly interested in not letting party A get in then any vote for any party other than A is worthwhile, allowing you to vote honestly).

 

the problem is, tho, that this kinda change would have to be made by... ... our democratically elected representatives. who get democratically elected under the current system about 50% of the time, so are unlikely to change it

[Pangloss]

I think alot of Americans, if not most, think of voting as nothing more than an American tradition, like the 4th of July. They label themselves "Republican," "conservative," "Democrat," and "liberal," and they let these titles, rather than information, decide their vote. I'm not very confident in the opinion of the masses. And I can't help but think that my vote would effectively work to counterbalance the votes cast by those who simply don't care to make an informed decision.

 

I think the actual statistic IS "most" -- like 80%. I.E. 80% of the voting population will pull the "Democrat" or "Republican" lever just like they did last time, regardless of the issues or the candidates.

 

That's a commonly held and widely repeated statistic, but mind you I've never seen a report or study that actually shows where that number came from, so take it with a grain of salt.

 

I'm sure the actual number varies, because it's a big country and people certainly change their minds from time to time. There are also trends based on age, which this statistic doesn't seem to account for, like the old addage about how the difference between a liberal and a conservative is whether or not they have children. (Nonsense, of course, but certainly not unheard-of. Obviously there are trends and issues that push people the other way as well, like Iraq or the influence of Hollywood and the media.)

 

My personal opinion is that in general all the debate IS over just a very small percentage of the population that's actually willing to reconsider its normal ideology, and choose carefully by issues and candidates.

 

One statistic that I use to illustrate this point (though I admit that my sample is poor!) is that out of all the people I know outside of cyberspace, I am THE ONLY ONE who has ever crossed party lines. I voted for Bush in 2000 and Kerry in 2004, and I've voted as many times for Democrats as I have for Republicans. I don't know anybody else who can make anything LIKE that claim. I know a few people who typically vote one party who SAY they sometimes vote for someone in the other party, but they can almost never back it up with a name. Almost everyone I know votes either Republican or Democrat. Always. They'll even stand there and agree with you about the stupidity of doing so, and then go right back to the poll and do it again.

[Reaper]

They'll even stand there and agree with you about the stupidity of doing so, and then go right back to the poll and do it again.

 

How is that different from any other time when most people usually have to make a decision on any matter, never mind politics .

 

Just last term I took an intro course into history, and one depressing lesson you learn is that most people just don't seem to learn from their mistakes from history...

 

Yup. i'm quite interested in the idea of proportional representation, so if party C gets x% of the vote, party C gets x% of the power (and if you're mainly interested in not letting party A get in then any vote for any party other than A is worthwhile, allowing you to vote honestly).

 

I'm not sure how that is done in other countries, but here in the US we certainly need a system that allows other third parties to actually be able to get a seat. Otherwise, the senators or people who run for house of representatives are usually split in either democrat or republicans... the same 2 parties no matter what you do.

[DrDNA]

I think the actual statistic IS "most" -- like 80%. I.E. 80% of the voting population will pull the "Democrat" or "Republican" lever just like they did last time, regardless of the issues or the candidates.

 

That's a commonly held and widely repeated statistic, but mind you I've never seen a report or study that actually shows where that number came from, so take it with a grain of salt.

 

 

Regardless of the exact numbers, I would like to see that changed. That as in, vote an entire ballot republican or democrat by performing one simple action. Unlike the electoral college system, it is not in the constitution. The way it is now, we ask a significant percentage of the population to NOT think about voting every election and they do so superbly (not think). It also is a major hinderence to 3rd party candidates (as Lockheed has noted), which is probably why it won't be going anywhere anytime soon.

[mike90]

Well in the US at least Id say the nonvoters are split between the type of moron who is so lazy and uninformed its probably a good thng they're not voting, and people like myself who realize its the same dishonest crook in the pocket of lobbyists and big business no matter who you pick.

[JohnB]

We use the preferential system.

 

It gives people the opportunity to vote for minor parties ( or Independents) without wasting their vote if the minor candidate doesn't get up.

 

It works well for us.

[DrDNA]

We use the preferential system.

 

It gives people the opportunity to vote for minor parties ( or Independents) without wasting their vote if the minor candidate doesn't get up.

 

It works well for us.

 

Interesting system you have there. I was not aware. Looks like it could get complicated.

Have many have minor party cands or Indies actually won by that system?

[ParanoiA]

Interesting system you have there. I was not aware. Looks like it could get complicated.

Have many have minor party cands or Indies actually won by that system?

 

Yeah, I was wondering the same thing.

[Severian]

I have been getting slightly frustrated by the discussion that has been raging lately on the recent Scottish elections. There were a record number of spoiled ballots, and there has been outrage that so many voters were disenfranchised by having a complicated voting system that they weren't able to understand.

 

However, firstly, if they were too stupid to be able to fillin their ballot papers correctly, they are too stupid to vote.

 

Secondly, I have quite a few friends who deliberately spoiled their ballots because they thought none of the candidates deserved their vote. Now they are annoyed that they are bing lumped in with the idiots, and frustrated that their reason for spoiling their ballots is not even being entertained by the media.

[Pangloss]

That's interesting. It reminds me of something about the 2000 presidential election fiasco here in Florida that I had forgotten, which was that some people deliberately chose not to vote because they didn't like either candidate. They would vote on other races but leave that one blank.

 

I wondered at the time if those close inspections of the punch cards that we saw so often on television were happening because of "sympathetic" indentations made by stacking the cards together with cards that WERE punched, or by other anomalitic indentations made by the equipment. But of course they never talked about any of that on the news.

 

We did used to hear a lot about people who were "too stupid to vote", but that meme seemed to become politically incorrect about the time Jesse Jackson showed up to protest disenfranchisement.