EPTI think there should be a focus in schools on civic empowerment so that the "loudest" people aren't just agreed with, and people take more active role in participation. Part of the problem is that there is a gap in civic empowerment that makes people not care as much about participating in politics from an early age. Once this mindset is engrained, it is hard to persuade them otherwise. This can be fixed, but it would require an overhaul of not only the education system as a whole, but specifically how civics is taught in classes (Levinson, No Child Left Behind).
Fix Democracy in America - Page 2
| Blogs > Gummy |
|
SCPlato
United States249 Posts
I think there should be a focus in schools on civic empowerment so that the "loudest" people aren't just agreed with, and people take more active role in participation. Part of the problem is that there is a gap in civic empowerment that makes people not care as much about participating in politics from an early age. Once this mindset is engrained, it is hard to persuade them otherwise. This can be fixed, but it would require an overhaul of not only the education system as a whole, but specifically how civics is taught in classes (Levinson, No Child Left Behind). | ||
|
Cyber_Cheese
Australia3615 Posts
| ||
|
felisconcolori
United States6168 Posts
Informed voters, people that actually can think for themselves and make their own decisions without having their positions spoon fed to them by one talking head or another, are what we need. And there's not a whole lot of demand for it, because it's easier to just pick a side and go with it. The parties don't want you to think about things, they want you to support the party. Period. Redistricting is another word for "gerrymandering" to ensure that the party has the best shot of winning a race in that area, and both parties collaborate on this kind of thing. They also collude to ensure that there's only really the choice of Coke or Pepsi - which is a major disincentive for some when it comes to voting. Quite frankly, there's not a whole lot of things that make people "excited" to vote. Especially when year after year after year, we keep getting a choice of bad or worse. And when we do manage to elect someone that might have a brain, the rest of the apparatus gets scared and locks the entire process down. Politicians don't like change. umm. (/rant) So yeah, TL;dr - paying people to vote is not going to work; and there are studies to that effect across a wide variety of mediums. It's like paying people for good grades - in the long term, it doesn't work. | ||
|
Grovbolle
Denmark3813 Posts
This is not a criticism of America, or either parties, just a mere observation. If no one is representing you, why would you vote for either? | ||
|
sc2superfan101
3583 Posts
On June 25 2012 11:35 Gummy wrote: the probability that my vote will influence the outcome of an election multiplied by the realized differences on my way of life (whether it be social or economic) is never worth the time it takes to drive out, wait in line, and vote, nor is it worth the money I would have paid somebody to fill out a form for me. this is a complete falsehood. local elections are often influenced by a tiny margin of votes and every single national election has massive amounts of local elections and proposals that are voted on at the same time in the same place. it takes more effort to skip the national voting while voting for the local stuff than it does to put a mark on a piece of paper. seriously, people need to learn what the fudge they are talking about before they try to justify laziness. | ||
|
Xiron
Germany1233 Posts
On June 25 2012 23:29 sc2superfan101 wrote: it takes more effort to skip the national voting while voting for the local stuff than it does to put a mark on a piece of paper. So you say doing nothing demands more effort than driving somewhere and waiting to fill out a paper? Tell me how that works. Thanks. | ||
|
sc2superfan101
3583 Posts
On June 26 2012 00:17 Xiron wrote: So you say doing nothing demands more effort than driving somewhere and waiting to fill out a paper? Tell me how that works. Thanks. did you read the rest of my post? ok, let me break it down: in America, we have national, state, and local elections. state and local you also vote on propositions and other cool stuff like that. now, we could have a billion and a half different voting times and places for every little thing, but that would be dumb, so we've brilliantly come up with a solution: we vote on ALL of it at the same time (there are some exceptions which i will go over later) and at the same place. what that means is that every single time there is a national election, you also vote on a whole slew of local and state-level stuff. local and state-level stuff is extremely important and is voted on at the exact same time, exact same place and on the exact same paper as the national stuff. in fact, the local/state stuff is usually if not always on the back of the paper, whereas the national stuff is on the front. that means two things: 1) in order to vote on local and state stuff (which is often influenced by a tiny margin) you HAVE to drive to the polling place and get your ballot 2) in order to not vote on national shit, but still vote on local/state shit, you literally have to try to skip the national stuff, because they are on the same exact ballot as the local/state stuff. so when the OP says it's not worth the drive to vote on national stuff, he is wildly misrepresenting the truth. the truth is that it is absolutely worth the drive to vote on local/state stuff as that is 1) more important than national stuff, and 2) is what really affects your daily life and also has a huge effect on national issues. the real assertion he would be making in that case is either: 1) that he refuses to drive out to vote on local/state stuff which is irresponsible and lazy or 2) that the effort of putting a pen on a piece of paper is too much for the worth of casting your vote on a national issue. i think that is about as lazy a thing as i have ever heard if that's what he's saying (he's not but that is what the truth would be if he wants to assert that he does vote on local/state stuff) basically, the OP is admitting that he has no clue how things work, or is trying to justify not voting on anything ever. im not one of these "get out and vote!!!!" guys. if you don't want to vote, or have no clue what's going on in the world around you, then don't vote. simple as that. but if you have any interest in doing you civic duty, than voting is an important part of that. if you're too lazy to find out what is going on in your community than i think you should definitely be too lazy to complain about any of it, unfortunately, the people who are too lazy to vote are often the people who spend hours trying to complain about it and justify not voting. the OP put far more effort into making his post than it requires to vote on national stuff. edit: the exceptions are only state/local. sometimes there will be special elections where you don't vote on national shit but do vote on state/local stuff. also, aren't congressman considered part of the "national elections" and your congressman is decided by the people in your district. a couple of votes can be the difference between a majority in congress or a minority. it actually is a really big deal. | ||
|
Logo
United States7542 Posts
The bigger problem is that not all votes are equal since corporations and the rich make up the vast vast majority of who's donating to a campaign. Only .22% of people donate >$200, yet that amount makes up 66.1% of the total donations. Politicians are going to cater to those who help them win the campaign. In today's elections that's donators first, voters second. That's the problem. | ||
|
Gummy
United States2180 Posts
On June 25 2012 18:06 SCPlato wrote: I don't like the idea of having to pay others to vote. The money for this would have to come from taxes, and you are essentially forcing me to pay you to vote and participate in politics. I don't think this is right, and we should look for another way to get people to participate. I think there should be a focus in schools on civic empowerment so that the "loudest" people aren't just agreed with, and people take more active role in participation. Part of the problem is that there is a gap in civic empowerment that makes people not care as much about participating in politics from an early age. Once this mindset is engrained, it is hard to persuade them otherwise. This can be fixed, but it would require an overhaul of not only the education system as a whole, but specifically how civics is taught in classes (Levinson, No Child Left Behind). There is no amount of education or civic empowerment that can get everybody to vote. A large proportion of the population rationally chooses not to vote as a result of the current system. On June 26 2012 00:40 Logo wrote: Voter turnout is pretty low on the list of problems for Democracy in America anyways so it's kind of barking up the wrong tree. The bigger problem is that not all votes are equal since corporations and the rich make up the vast vast majority of who's donating to a campaign. Only .22% of people donate >$200, yet that amount makes up 66.1% of the total donations. Politicians are going to cater to those who help them win the campaign. In today's elections that's donators first, voters second. That's the problem. Yes it is barking up the wrong tree, but that's what this thread is about. Please stay on topic. On June 26 2012 00:29 sc2superfan101 wrote: did you read the rest of my post? ok, let me break it down: in America, we have national, state, and local elections. state and local you also vote on propositions and other cool stuff like that. now, we could have a billion and a half different voting times and places for every little thing, but that would be dumb, so we've brilliantly come up with a solution: we vote on ALL of it at the same time (there are some exceptions which i will go over later) and at the same place. what that means is that every single time there is a national election, you also vote on a whole slew of local and state-level stuff. local and state-level stuff is extremely important and is voted on at the exact same time, exact same place and on the exact same paper as the national stuff. in fact, the local/state stuff is usually if not always on the back of the paper, whereas the national stuff is on the front. that means two things: 1) in order to vote on local and state stuff (which is often influenced by a tiny margin) you HAVE to drive to the polling place and get your ballot 2) in order to not vote on national shit, but still vote on local/state shit, you literally have to try to skip the national stuff, because they are on the same exact ballot as the local/state stuff. so when the OP says it's not worth the drive to vote on national stuff, he is wildly misrepresenting the truth. the truth is that it is absolutely worth the drive to vote on local/state stuff as that is 1) more important than national stuff, and 2) is what really affects your daily life and also has a huge effect on national issues. the real assertion he would be making in that case is either: 1) that he refuses to drive out to vote on local/state stuff which is irresponsible and lazy or 2) that the effort of putting a pen on a piece of paper is too much for the worth of casting your vote on a national issue. i think that is about as lazy a thing as i have ever heard if that's what he's saying (he's not but that is what the truth would be if he wants to assert that he does vote on local/state stuff) basically, the OP is admitting that he has no clue how things work, or is trying to justify not voting on anything ever. im not one of these "get out and vote!!!!" guys. if you don't want to vote, or have no clue what's going on in the world around you, then don't vote. simple as that. but if you have any interest in doing you civic duty, than voting is an important part of that. if you're too lazy to find out what is going on in your community than i think you should definitely be too lazy to complain about any of it, unfortunately, the people who are too lazy to vote are often the people who spend hours trying to complain about it and justify not voting. the OP put far more effort into making his post than it requires to vote on national stuff. edit: the exceptions are only state/local. sometimes there will be special elections where you don't vote on national shit but do vote on state/local stuff. also, aren't congressman considered part of the "national elections" and your congressman is decided by the people in your district. a couple of votes can be the difference between a majority in congress or a minority. it actually is a really big deal. Not sure why you can't keep this discussion civil. I believe the same principle should be applied to local elections too, but that would create some legal issues with states rights. I don't vote in local elections not because they don't matter, but because I haven't been able to call a single place home since I turned 18 and, therefore, do not feel obliged or qualified to vote in such elections in a location I just happened to be when I turned 18, and the effect of my decision may effect other peoples' lives. On June 25 2012 19:45 felisconcolori wrote: So yeah, TL;dr - paying people to vote is not going to work; and there are studies to that effect across a wide variety of mediums. It's like paying people for good grades - in the long term, it doesn't work. I'm pretty sure that more recent studies "paying" people for good grades suggest that it is the implementation of incentives rather than the incentives themselves that have prevented their success in the past. See http://www.edlabs.harvard.edu/ | ||
|
dongmydrum
United States139 Posts
and besides, paying money to vote? the poor and uneducated would be the first to vote. $5 would simply be too little an incentive to motivate the middle class and even if your plan works and everyone votes, all we would be doing is increasing the money supply and decreasing purchasing power. and if you read freakonomics, you would know the voter turnout would actually decrease because they would see the penalty as a fair way of not voting. most people vote not for financial incentives but for the satisfaction. if you put a dollar amount to this "sacred" duty, it will actually lose value. | ||
|
sc2superfan101
3583 Posts
On June 26 2012 02:08 Gummy wrote: Not sure why you can't keep this discussion civil. I believe the same principle should be applied to local elections too, but that would create some legal issues with states rights. I don't vote in local elections not because they don't matter, but because I haven't been able to call a single place home since I turned 18 and, therefore, do not feel obliged or qualified to vote in such elections in a location I just happened to be when I turned 18, and the effect of my decision may effect other peoples' lives. what is uncivil about what i said? you were misrepresenting the facts and i called you on it. you may not have been misrepresenting them on purpose, but you were doing it and people outside the country or people who haven't voted may not be able to realize that you were. you (and anyone else) not voting has nothing to do with the cost of driving and waiting. so you don't vote at all? okay, then where do you get off asking for someone to pay you to vote? and if you don't vote because you don't live in the area long enough, then why should we pay you to vote...? the reason you aren't voting has nothing to do with a cost-benefit analysis which means the cost-benefit is completely irrelevant. for other people who do not vote, they cannot claim a cost-benefit analysis as their reason, as local/state elections are plenty important and voting gives plenty of benefit to account for a fifteen minute drive and a wait in a line. cost-benefit has nothing to do with why people don't vote. people don't vote because people are lazy. it's that simple. that's not an insult, it's just how it is. edit: basically, it's not legit to separate local/state voting from national voting, because they are not separate actions. and for that reason it is not legit to claim a cost-benefit reason for not voting in national elections, because the benefit of voting in local/state is high enough to account for the drive and the wait, and voting in the national elections takes no effort if you vote in local/state elections. | ||
|
Gummy
United States2180 Posts
On June 26 2012 02:30 dongmydrum wrote: you're focusing on the results not on the cause of the problem. people don't vote because either they are happy with how the government is doing (or certainly not bad enough to bother to go to the polls) or they don't think their vote will matter ( eg, both parties are corrupt/inept etc) In fact, as a capitalistic society, we should be happy that people choose to maximize their utility whether that could be reached by voting or not voting. and besides, paying money to vote? the poor and uneducated would be the first to vote. $5 would simply be too little an incentive to motivate the middle class and even if your plan works and everyone votes, all we would be doing is increasing the money supply and decreasing purchasing power. To see why your logic is faulty, consider an extreme example. The cost of voting is sufficiently high, the population binning is sufficiently coarse, and the consequences of the election are sufficiently minor. 99.99% of people in a voting situation, with individual rationale, believe that it is not worth their time and energy to vote. The .01% of people, who for the sake of argument always have an opposite set of interests as the 99.99%, make all the decisions. Now you could say "now if somebody knows they are part of the 99.99% why don't they go and vote?" This is tricky though... Just because you feel that way doesn't mean anybody else will feel that way. And unless you can get a particular 0.01% of the population to vote with you, (which requires a very very large amount of effort since in the United States that's 30,000 people), your initial evaluation is entirely correct, as is the other 99.99%'s. Thus, with a poorly designed incentive system you get an outcome derived from everybody being able to choose to maximize their utility whether that could be reached by voting or not voting that is worse for 99.99% of the population. | ||
|
ninazerg
United States7291 Posts
| ||
|
Gummy
United States2180 Posts
On June 26 2012 02:53 ninazerg wrote: I cannot possibly see how this could ever be abused by politicians. This plan is just so perfect that it can't fail, because elections are like ESPORTS - the more money you pump into them, the better they get! We should also pay people to not commit crimes and obey the law! OH MY GOD, GENIUS. THINK ABOUT IT. People would be motivated to uphold the statutes of the law because they'd have an incentive to do so now! Your sarcasm is misplaced. There are already incentives not to commit crime. A carrot and a stick are the same thing, with regards to game theory, minus a constant. I suppose there are psychological differences involved, but that's missing the mark. The majority of violent crimes or theft occur as a result of desperation, passion, or psychosis. Other crimes, such as insider trading, drug trafficking, tax evasion, etc... are committed systematically with the knowledge that enforcement is lax enough such that the probability of getting caught does not outweigh the payoff. The process of logical analysis is often one of simplification, but you need to be careful not to simplify out the most salient characteristics of the problem. | ||
|
Zorkmid
4410 Posts
| ||
|
dongmydrum
United States139 Posts
On June 26 2012 02:52 Gummy wrote: To see why your logic is faulty, consider an extreme example. The cost of voting is sufficiently high, the population binning is sufficiently coarse, and the consequences of the election are sufficiently minor. 99.99% of people in a voting situation, with individual rationale, believe that it is not worth their time and energy to vote. The .01% of people, who for the sake of argument always have an opposite set of interests as the 99.99%, make all the decisions. Now you could say "now if somebody knows they are part of the 99.99% why don't they go and vote?" This is tricky though... Just because you feel that way doesn't mean anybody else will feel that way. And unless you can get a particular 0.01% of the population to vote with you, (which requires a very very large amount of effort since in the United States that's 30,000 people), your initial evaluation is entirely correct, as is the other 99.99%'s. Thus, with a poorly designed incentive system you get an outcome derived from everybody being able to that is worse for 99.99% of the population. But consider the next election. 99.99% will realize that they have to vote because the controlling power will do the opposite of what they want. the 99.99% also realize that, as you realize, it becomes a prisoner's dillema. they have no way of knowing how other people will act. some may believe that enough people will vote and some may not believe that enough people will vote.a lot of people will have this hope that they will be the 1 vote that tips the scale in their favor however improbable that may be and those people will go to vote. I'm sure "you" will go and vote because you believe my logic is faulty. if i can get enough people like you then no problem. Meanwhile, people like me believe people like you will vote and don't have to worry about 0.01% taking over. | ||
|
Chef
10810 Posts
I don't like the idea of having to pay others to vote. The money for this would have to come from taxes, and you are essentially forcing me to pay you to vote and participate in politics. I like thinking about it in this way. You pay a tax which pays people to vote, and then you get the money you paid for the tax right back. It's completely meaningless! Even forgiving that tho, I think it just encourages people to make uninformed decisions (not that they aren't basically already that way). If your incentive to vote is to get money, and you woudn't have voted otherwise, chances are that you're not going to research that vote very well. If you wanna talk about why people aren't voting tho, it's probably disillusionment. Either because you don't care which candidate gets elected since none of them represent your concerns or they're too similar. In a lot of cases your life remains more or less the same no matter which party gets elected and it's all just an expensive show to you. | ||
|
ninazerg
United States7291 Posts
On June 26 2012 03:01 Gummy wrote: Your sarcasm is misplaced. There are already incentives not to commit crime. A carrot and a stick are the same thing, with regards to game theory, minus a constant. I suppose there are psychological differences involved, but that's missing the mark. The majority of violent crimes or theft occur as a result of desperation, passion, or psychosis. Other crimes, such as insider trading, drug trafficking, tax evasion, etc... are committed systematically with the knowledge that enforcement is lax enough such that the probability of getting caught does not outweigh the payoff. The process of logical analysis is often one of simplification, but you need to be careful not to simplify out the most salient characteristics of the problem. I disagree, and maintain that my sarcasm is placed appropriately. Paying people to vote would not "fix" a democratic process, because the monetary incentive probably wouldn't be substantial enough to motivate people to vote, and this line of thought is especially flawed by thinking that adding numbers to the active electorate would somehow improve the way politics functions. People don't go to the polls often because they feel like their individual vote is not significant enough to have any influence over an election that is largely predetermined during the race, and having a monetary incentive would not change this point of view. They would still view their vote as insignificant, regardless of the pay-out they would receive for voting. Additionally, if more people from lower socio-economic backgrounds were added to the voting pool, this would add to the number of misinformed and uneducated voters. Also, consider this: Let's say your idea works, and 200,000,000 people vote in the next election. To pay each person $5 would cost a billion dollars. No problem, right? The average American makes about 27,000 dollars per year. The average tax rate is about 22%. 22% of 27,000 is 5,940 dollars. A billion dollars is one one-thousandth of a trillion dollars. $5.94 is one one-thousandth of $5,940 dollars, so I would be essentially paying myself to vote. In fact, I would be losing money. | ||
|
SCPlato
United States249 Posts
On June 26 2012 02:08 Gummy wrote: There is no amount of education or civic empowerment that can get everybody to vote. A large proportion of the population rationally chooses not to vote as a result of the current system. Yes it is barking up the wrong tree, but that's what this thread is about. Please stay on topic. Not sure why you can't keep this discussion civil. I believe the same principle should be applied to local elections too, but that would create some legal issues with states rights. I don't vote in local elections not because they don't matter, but because I haven't been able to call a single place home since I turned 18 and, therefore, do not feel obliged or qualified to vote in such elections in a location I just happened to be when I turned 18, and the effect of my decision may effect other peoples' lives. I'm pretty sure that more recent studies "paying" people for good grades suggest that it is the implementation of incentives rather than the incentives themselves that have prevented their success in the past. See http://www.edlabs.harvard.edu/ Yeah, the numbers that choose to "rationally" not vote are not high. There are far more who are basically just disenfranchised. I guarantee that if civics was emphasized more in school that voting turnout would be significantly higher. 100%? of course not, but that doesn't mean that you can't make real improvement from where we are at now. | ||
|
Gummy
United States2180 Posts
On June 26 2012 03:51 ninazerg wrote: I disagree, and maintain that my sarcasm is placed appropriately. Paying people to vote would not "fix" a democratic process, because the monetary incentive probably wouldn't be substantial enough to motivate people to vote, and this line of thought is especially flawed by thinking that adding numbers to the active electorate would somehow improve the way politics functions. People don't go to the polls often because they feel like their individual vote is not significant enough to have any influence over an election that is largely predetermined during the race, and having a monetary incentive would not change this point of view. They would still view their vote as insignificant, regardless of the pay-out they would receive for voting. Additionally, if more people from lower socio-economic backgrounds were added to the voting pool, this would add to the number of misinformed and uneducated voters. Also, consider this: Let's say your idea works, and 200,000,000 people vote in the next election. To pay each person $5 would cost a billion dollars. No problem, right? The average American makes about 27,000 dollars per year. The average tax rate is about 22%. 22% of 27,000 is 5,940 dollars. A billion dollars is one one-thousandth of a trillion dollars. $5.94 is one one-thousandth of $5,940 dollars, so I would be essentially paying myself to vote. In fact, I would be losing money. Your calculations, first of all, are grossly misinformed. 27 is an estimate of the median, not a mean, for one. Secondly, you introduce the number "1 trillion" out of thin air. Then you make a conclusion that does not follow from your math. But I think your point is a valid argument against my proposed implementation. I don't think it's a valid argument against the concept, or my second proposal to 2.) Shift tax day and election day to coincide. Included with every tax return form is an absentee ballot. If that ballot is folded up, sealed and attached with the tax returns, the taxpayer is eligible to receive a "voter's credit." People here who are saying that you are paying yourself to vote are essentially correct. On a macro scale, however, you are more accurately penalizing people who do not vote. But again, in game theory the difference between a carrot and stick is only a constant. On June 26 2012 03:20 Chef wrote: If you wanna talk about why people aren't voting tho, it's probably disillusionment. Either because you don't care which candidate gets elected since none of them represent your concerns or they're too similar. In a lot of cases your life remains more or less the same no matter which party gets elected and it's all just an expensive show to you. On June 26 2012 03:53 SCPlato wrote: Yeah, the numbers that choose to "rationally" not vote are not high. There are far more who are basically just disenfranchised. I guarantee that if civics was emphasized more in school that voting turnout would be significantly higher. 100%? of course not, but that doesn't mean that you can't make real improvement from where we are at now. I agree entirely with what you are saying, but am using a slightly different term for it. In my model, disillusionment IS rational. To summarize my model from the OP, it is worth voting in a bicameral national election only if if the probability of your vote making a difference multiplied by the net benefit of policies to be pursued by the two candidates is greater than the cost of voting. Disillusionment, or specifically "not caring which candidate gets elected," falls squarely within that model. That being said, the main thrust of the argument in favor of voter incentivization is that if people vote by default instead of not vote by default, the higher voter turnout will force political campaigns to focus on education and persuasion as opposed to mobilization. The former leads to moderation and consensus building, which are key to informed policy-making in a bicameral government. The latter leads to disruptive selection toward more extreme viewpoints. | ||
| ||
