Why don't people vote?

Magus · 11-05-2010, 10:10 PM

Theories? I mean, apparently the turnout in this last election, especially among college students, was pretty abhorrent, especially in comparison to the 2008 election, despite this election being every bit as important.

What gives? Does this country really need to institute some kind of unconstitutional law requiring people to vote like Australia or other countries to force people to do it?

There is only a general election once every two years. Even if you don't turn out for the primary (which you should!) is it too much to ask that you turn out for the general election? It literally took me three minutes to vote this year. I walked in, signed my name, went in a booth, hit a couple buttons on a machine, and that was it. Is that really too much to ask every two years?

I know, I know, sometimes you have to wait in line. Well, there are possible solutions to this. A lot of states allow you to vote early, a lot of them allow you to vote by mail, etc. I'm pretty sure countries where you are required to vote by law like Australia make it very easy to do. But I'm sure people still don't vote there and have to pay fines, unless they have some reason for their inability to vote (like religious or medical).

Personally I think we could do a lot more to make voting easier, like allow you to get absentee ballots at any time prior to the election as opposed to having to send in for one a month ahead of time, all states could offer early voting, all states could offer mail ballots, etc. There may be a little risk of fraud but we could institute security measures to catch that too. I think the advantage of having more voters voting would outweigh the money and effort that would have to go into getting more people to vote.

But like I said, even in countries where it is easy to vote and it is required by law or you face a fine, even there, I am sure people don't vote. You could put all the effort in the world in this country into making voting even easier than it is, and you would still get a low turn out.

So what do you think are the underlying causes? Not easy enough? Lines too long People don't want to go to jury duty (even though they also get your name off of your draft card if you are a man, or your state income tax forms, or myriad other places) so bad they are afraid to sign up to vote? Or do they psychologically feel their vote means nothing, even though the fact that everybody thinks that way is the specific reason it means nothing?

Thoughts?

Krylo · 11-05-2010, 10:13 PM

Because it doesn't matter who you vote for.

They're all assholes.

Edit: The reason the 2008 primaries had such turn out was because Obama convinced us he'd be DIFFERENT. He lied, obviously, but he lied well enough.

It has nothing to do with the voting process, it has everything to do with there not being a single candidate that is worth voting for. Oh hey, democratic majority? That's pretty cool... except for the whole thing where the democrats fuck around and sabotage themselves. Oh hey, republican majority? That's pretty lame... except for the whole thing where it's exactly the same as having a democratic majority.

The apathy has to do with the candidates, the two (one) party system, and the complete lack of any actual importance to anything we do vis a vis the government.

Loyal · 11-05-2010, 10:24 PM

What Krylo said.

It's depressing casting my vote for someone who's gonna change nothing and just screw up a lot.

rpgdemon · 11-05-2010, 10:36 PM

What all the above said, plus I couldn't get an absentee ballot.

I'd have voted, even with crappy candidates, if I could have, but I couldn't get out to vote, and didn't get an absentee ballot, or even think of it until it was Tuesday afternoon.

Magus · 11-05-2010, 10:50 PM

There are write-in candidates in almost any local or state election. There is often someone to support even if you don't think they'll win, and frankly local and state elections often have more impact on your daily life than national ones, in a lot of ways. There is more reason to vote than just who is going to be senator or representative in the national capital.

Sure there is an element of apathy but becoming less politically motivated seems like the wrong move to take, it would make more sense to attempt to change the things that make you apathetic. For example, voting in primaries increases the odds of getting a candidate you like and can actually stand behind. Just because they list themselves under the greater umbrella of the two parties doesn't mean there aren't broadly different political views within primary candidates, not to mention the existence of independents in every election. It was depressing when Joe Hoeffel was beaten out by Dan Onorato to be the Democratic candidate for governor in my state, because Hoeffel had a better record, but then again he did get a good 23% of the vote to be the candidate, if I just quit voting because of this one time that my candidate didn't get the nomination then I'd never see a point where my candidate won.

But it would be nice to see more people run for positions and try to break the mold of the two-party system. I just don't see how not voting at all is going to create encouragement for people to run, instead you will just get diehards in the two party system voting for people in the two party system. I mean, if Ralph Nader didn't even get the 2% he gets in every election he would lose all impetus to even try to run, and so would all other third party candidates. If they don't even see a glimmer of hope they won't run at all.

Also yeah rpgdemon one thing that could help is to make it easier to get absentee ballots, or revamp the entire system to allow for early voting, and mail ballots, or even in the future online voting. There are a lot of hurdles to go through to prevent fraud or whatever but I think they would be worth handling.

EDIT: Or if all else failed it would make sense to at least vote in the primary even if you didn't bother voting in the general election just in case you found a good break-out candidate you felt worthy of your vote.

ANOTHER EDIT: Also one of the problems over the past two years wasn't just the Democrats utter spinelessness. If you create enough spineless Democrats sooner or later they will vote the way they want without being terrorized by the thought that they won't get the independent swing vote if they actually follow through on their promises. If more democratic supporters had turned out in this election then maybe there'd be enough of them for them to quit jumping at their own shadows. MAYBE. Perhaps not but it couldn't hurt to get more of them in there instead of less if you want them to do things. The president can't sign anything if it doesn't get to him, is what I'm saying.

Azisien · 11-05-2010, 11:06 PM

I do not know how it works in the United States or this applies at all, however: In Canadian federal elections, who you vote for carries a bit of weight regardless of our absolutely broken FPTP system. Every vote a candidate gets ensures funding for the party. So while I may vote Green and as far as electoral success goes, that is pointless right now, my vote in effect gives them some more money for next time.

Does this exist in the US?

And if it does or doesn't, I dunno, I still kind of side with Krylo. Politicians are balls.

Magus · 11-05-2010, 11:15 PM

No, our system is basically based on whoever has the most money in private donations has the best chance of winning. There is a lot wrong with our system, I just think not participating in it at all is not the answer. I mean, if someone gets a lot of votes it might increase the chance of them getting the most donations, plus Obama was got into office mostly by purely small grassroots donations. It is possible for anyone to do this if people care enough.

I mean at the end of the day it makes no sense to not vote at all. At least vote in primaries. Remember what Plato said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Plato

One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors.

I mean Plato apparently thought a lot of himself but then again so does the average American, soooo...

Azisien · 11-05-2010, 11:17 PM

Damn, Plato is one chill dude. It's hard to not agree with him.

I don't think my funding argument changes the fact that the peeps getting the most money from the evil fatcats probably are the ones getting elected. I know our municipal elections are awful this way. We just had an election and the rate of incumbents keeping their seats was like higher than 80%, and the loses were only due to some of them running for mayor and not being allowed to run for councilor also. Ugh.

Magus · 11-05-2010, 11:27 PM

The problem with campaign finance reform is no one votes for it because if it existed they probably wouldn't have gotten elected. There are a lot of dickbags in government.

Well the worst thing I see in local elections are people running unopposed. It's just not right. I wish I was 25 because shit I'd run just to give the guy somebody to run against. I'm probably not even qualified but then again he might not be either. If he is he can mop the floor with me.

Though getting enough signatures on the petition might be difficult (I believe it is a percentage of the district you are in, though local primaries may not require that sort of thing), but if your argument with people was "Well he's running unopposed don't you think he should have at least one opponent?" it might get through with people.

Besides which the apathy argument doesn't make a lot of sense in another aspect, if you are that apathetic why do you care if there is a decent person running, why not just vote for the least shitty one? You don't really care, right?

...they give you a sticker! It says you voted on it! C'mon!

Krylo · 11-05-2010, 11:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magus

Besides which the apathy argument doesn't make a lot of sense in another aspect, if you are that apathetic why do you care if there is a decent person running, why not just vote for the least shitty one? You don't really care, right?

You don't get how apathy works do you?

11-05-2010, 10:10 PM	#1
Magus Archer and Armstrong vs. the World Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 7,164	Why don't people vote? Theories? I mean, apparently the turnout in this last election, especially among college students, was pretty abhorrent, especially in comparison to the 2008 election, despite this election being every bit as important. What gives? Does this country really need to institute some kind of unconstitutional law requiring people to vote like Australia or other countries to force people to do it? There is only a general election once every two years. Even if you don't turn out for the primary (which you should!) is it too much to ask that you turn out for the general election? It literally took me three minutes to vote this year. I walked in, signed my name, went in a booth, hit a couple buttons on a machine, and that was it. Is that really too much to ask every two years? I know, I know, sometimes you have to wait in line. Well, there are possible solutions to this. A lot of states allow you to vote early, a lot of them allow you to vote by mail, etc. I'm pretty sure countries where you are required to vote by law like Australia make it very easy to do. But I'm sure people still don't vote there and have to pay fines, unless they have some reason for their inability to vote (like religious or medical). Personally I think we could do a lot more to make voting easier, like allow you to get absentee ballots at any time prior to the election as opposed to having to send in for one a month ahead of time, all states could offer early voting, all states could offer mail ballots, etc. There may be a little risk of fraud but we could institute security measures to catch that too. I think the advantage of having more voters voting would outweigh the money and effort that would have to go into getting more people to vote. But like I said, even in countries where it is easy to vote and it is required by law or you face a fine, even there, I am sure people don't vote. You could put all the effort in the world in this country into making voting even easier than it is, and you would still get a low turn out. So what do you think are the underlying causes? Not easy enough? Lines too long People don't want to go to jury duty (even though they also get your name off of your draft card if you are a man, or your state income tax forms, or myriad other places) so bad they are afraid to sign up to vote? Or do they psychologically feel their vote means nothing, even though the fact that everybody thinks that way is the specific reason it means nothing? Thoughts? __________________ The Valiant Review

11-05-2010, 10:13 PM	#2
Krylo The Straightest Shota Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: It's a secret to everybody. Posts: 17,789	Because it doesn't matter who you vote for. They're all assholes. Edit: The reason the 2008 primaries had such turn out was because Obama convinced us he'd be DIFFERENT. He lied, obviously, but he lied well enough. It has nothing to do with the voting process, it has everything to do with there not being a single candidate that is worth voting for. Oh hey, democratic majority? That's pretty cool... except for the whole thing where the democrats fuck around and sabotage themselves. Oh hey, republican majority? That's pretty lame... except for the whole thing where it's exactly the same as having a democratic majority. The apathy has to do with the candidates, the two (one) party system, and the complete lack of any actual importance to anything we do vis a vis the government. __________________ I am very tired. Last edited by Krylo; 11-05-2010 at 10:16 PM.

11-05-2010, 10:36 PM	#4
rpgdemon Not a Taco Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 3,313	What all the above said, plus I couldn't get an absentee ballot. I'd have voted, even with crappy candidates, if I could have, but I couldn't get out to vote, and didn't get an absentee ballot, or even think of it until it was Tuesday afternoon. __________________ I did a lot of posting on here as a teenager, and I was pretty awful. Even after I learned, grew up, and came to be on the right side of a lot of important issues, I was still angry, abrasive, and generally increased the amount of hate in the world, in pretty unacceptable ways. On the off chance that someone is taking a trip down memory lane looking through those old threads, I wanted to devote my signature to say directly to you, I'm sorry. Thank you for letting me be better, NPF.

11-05-2010, 10:50 PM	#5
Magus Archer and Armstrong vs. the World Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 7,164	There are write-in candidates in almost any local or state election. There is often someone to support even if you don't think they'll win, and frankly local and state elections often have more impact on your daily life than national ones, in a lot of ways. There is more reason to vote than just who is going to be senator or representative in the national capital. Sure there is an element of apathy but becoming less politically motivated seems like the wrong move to take, it would make more sense to attempt to change the things that make you apathetic. For example, voting in primaries increases the odds of getting a candidate you like and can actually stand behind. Just because they list themselves under the greater umbrella of the two parties doesn't mean there aren't broadly different political views within primary candidates, not to mention the existence of independents in every election. It was depressing when Joe Hoeffel was beaten out by Dan Onorato to be the Democratic candidate for governor in my state, because Hoeffel had a better record, but then again he did get a good 23% of the vote to be the candidate, if I just quit voting because of this one time that my candidate didn't get the nomination then I'd never see a point where my candidate won. But it would be nice to see more people run for positions and try to break the mold of the two-party system. I just don't see how not voting at all is going to create encouragement for people to run, instead you will just get diehards in the two party system voting for people in the two party system. I mean, if Ralph Nader didn't even get the 2% he gets in every election he would lose all impetus to even try to run, and so would all other third party candidates. If they don't even see a glimmer of hope they won't run at all. Also yeah rpgdemon one thing that could help is to make it easier to get absentee ballots, or revamp the entire system to allow for early voting, and mail ballots, or even in the future online voting. There are a lot of hurdles to go through to prevent fraud or whatever but I think they would be worth handling. EDIT: Or if all else failed it would make sense to at least vote in the primary even if you didn't bother voting in the general election just in case you found a good break-out candidate you felt worthy of your vote. ANOTHER EDIT: Also one of the problems over the past two years wasn't just the Democrats utter spinelessness. If you create enough spineless Democrats sooner or later they will vote the way they want without being terrorized by the thought that they won't get the independent swing vote if they actually follow through on their promises. If more democratic supporters had turned out in this election then maybe there'd be enough of them for them to quit jumping at their own shadows. MAYBE. Perhaps not but it couldn't hurt to get more of them in there instead of less if you want them to do things. The president can't sign anything if it doesn't get to him, is what I'm saying. __________________ The Valiant Review Last edited by Magus; 11-05-2010 at 11:10 PM.

11-05-2010, 11:27 PM	#9
Magus Archer and Armstrong vs. the World Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 7,164	The problem with campaign finance reform is no one votes for it because if it existed they probably wouldn't have gotten elected. There are a lot of dickbags in government. Well the worst thing I see in local elections are people running unopposed. It's just not right. I wish I was 25 because shit I'd run just to give the guy somebody to run against. I'm probably not even qualified but then again he might not be either. If he is he can mop the floor with me. Though getting enough signatures on the petition might be difficult (I believe it is a percentage of the district you are in, though local primaries may not require that sort of thing), but if your argument with people was "Well he's running unopposed don't you think he should have at least one opponent?" it might get through with people. Besides which the apathy argument doesn't make a lot of sense in another aspect, if you are that apathetic why do you care if there is a decent person running, why not just vote for the least shitty one? You don't really care, right? ...they give you a sticker! It says you voted on it! C'mon! __________________ The Valiant Review

11-05-2010, 11:06 PM	#6
Azisien wat Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,177	I do not know how it works in the United States or this applies at all, however: In Canadian federal elections, who you vote for carries a bit of weight regardless of our absolutely broken FPTP system. Every vote a candidate gets ensures funding for the party. So while I may vote Green and as far as electoral success goes, that is pointless right now, my vote in effect gives them some more money for next time. Does this exist in the US? And if it does or doesn't, I dunno, I still kind of side with Krylo. Politicians are balls.

11-05-2010, 11:17 PM	#8
Azisien wat Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,177	Damn, Plato is one chill dude. It's hard to not agree with him. I don't think my funding argument changes the fact that the peeps getting the most money from the evil fatcats probably are the ones getting elected. I know our municipal elections are awful this way. We just had an election and the rate of incumbents keeping their seats was like higher than 80%, and the loses were only due to some of them running for mayor and not being allowed to run for councilor also. Ugh.