Go Vote - Page 5

On November 06 2012 09:48 Daigomi wrote:
Just an ignorant question from an foreigner: What are the exact benefits of having the typical absentee voters vote?

To me, it seems like, unless the preferences of the non-voting population differs significantly from those of the voting population, a sample size of 100m should be more than enough to get an accurate answer. Even if we assume that the non-voting population differs significantly from the voting population (a fairly big assumption), it still doesn't mean that it's a bad thing for them not to vote. In economics there's the idea that a free market allows the distribution of goods to consumers who place the highest value on those goods. Voting seems to be the same. Citizens who place the highest value on elections (and are thus the most likely to vote) get to have a greater say than those who don't value elections (and thus are unlikely to vote). As someone mentioned earlier, this should result in the more informed citizenry voting, ultimately resulting in better decisions being made.

The only situation in which I can personally see the benefit of having the non-voters vote is if there is some systematic factor dissuading a specific population group from voting. For example, before Obama it was possible that a large number of black Americans believed that none of the presidents would support them, resulting in a significant portion of the population not being represented (this is just an example, I have no idea if it black Americans really felt this way). However, as with the systematic bias, this is a very big assumption to make without having strong evidence supporting it. It also won't be fixed by motivating the average American to go vote.

So I guess my question remains: What is the benefit of non-voters voting, and why is it important to get these voters to vote?

On November 06 2012 10:13 itsjustatank wrote:


First you have to distinguish between absentee voting (which is voting by mail) and not voting. The greatest structural factor dissuading voting is the promotion in the political culture of the United States of keeping turnout low. It is to the advantage of the existing dominant political parties to attempt to reduce the turnout of supporters of the other side, as well as convince the large majority of people who don't vote to continue to do exactly that.

The point is that there is a huge proportion of the voting-eligible population in this country who do not vote, and if they had voted, the results from elections could potentially be drastically different. They end up not voting because the 'market' of voting explicitly prices them out of participating in the economy on purpose. Looking at the current system, with a small minority of people deciding elections in this country, and saying it is indicative of a normal distribution or otherwise okay isn't the way to go, because low turnout is indicative of market failure.

On November 06 2012 10:20 sc2superfan101 wrote:

huh? why are you discounting the fact that some of them may not vote because for some of them the vote is not important enough to waste time and money on?

further, how is a "low" turnout indicative of a market failure? especially when the purpose of voting is not simply to fill out and cast a ballot, but to elect effective leaders.

On November 06 2012 10:29 itsjustatank wrote:


Absentee voting renders your first point moot. Filling out a ballot by mail (or getting it early and turning it in early) 'wastes' no time at all, except for the effort of becoming educated. I would agree that things like declaring Election Day a federal holiday or requiring paid leave for people who want to go out and vote on that day would be useful in driving turnout if that is what you are getting at.

Whether or not the leaders the minority picks are 'effective' can be left up for heated argument. I will say that allowing a minority to pick and leaving a sizable number of people out in the cold is not a fair way of electing leaders. In addition, because elections are more than just about who gets to be the next President of the United States, failing to exercise a sovereign vote in other offices and positions can affect a non-voter even more than if whoever wins the office of the Presidency isn't their first choice.

On November 06 2012 10:39 sc2superfan101 wrote:

filling out the ballot early wastes time, just not a lot of it. it also wastes effort becoming informed on political issues. one could argue that an uninformed vote counts as much as an informed one, but then I would counter with the assertion that uninformed votes are the enemy of democracy, not the friend. further, I am not interested in the slightest in driving turnout. in fact, I think a depressed turnout is probably the best that we can hope for (for a variety of reasons).

whether or not the leaders that have been selected are effective is irrelevant to the fact that political representation is meaningless when it becomes the end in of itself. a democracy is not inherently better than a dictatorship. further, there is nothing stopping the majority from voting other than themselves, so your point about the fairness of our system is a straw-man. any system which guarantees the right to vote to the adult populace, regardless of race, religion, sexual preference, economic status, gender, or political persuasion has already passed the standard of being "fair".

and as a response to your third point, I will again ask why a greater number of voters would somehow lead to better leaders and officials on any level: local, state, or federal? unless you think that the mere fact of a vote being cast freely for one side is the primary goal of the democracy, then the turnout is largely irrelevant.

On November 06 2012 10:49 itsjustatank wrote:


As you seem to think totalitarian systems are acceptable in the modern era, there won't be any space for middle ground here.

On November 06 2012 10:59 sc2superfan101 wrote:

you misread my comment, I am not advocating totalitarianism or dictatorship. I am merely pointing out the fact that one's rights are no more inherently protected by democracy than dictatorship. democracy only guarantees a majority rule. of course, there are a great many democracies that are very free, arguably freer than a dictatorship can be, and therefore would be an objectively better system of governance. however, there are plenty of democracies (both historically and extant) that, in some respects, are less free than the dictatorship that they replaced.

my main argument, as it should be understood, is that a high voter turnout does not lead to better leaders, and therefore is not necessarily desirable. William F. Buckley Jr put it best in his book Up From Liberalism, when he compared the situations in Mexico (a "democracy") and in Venezuela (a dictatorship). in Mexico, they observe the forms of democracy, and yet, the minority party routinely received less than 10% of the popular vote in a Presidential election (a statistical impossibility). the standards of living for the citizens were largely the same in Mexico and in Venezuela at the time, and the effective political power that could be exercised by the citizens was basically the same. however, one was seen as acceptable and the other was seen as unacceptable on the mere grounds that one used a vote to establish it's totalitarian regime and the other dispensed with the niceties.

when one puts more value on the mere fact of a person being able to cast a ballot than on that same person being safe and secure in his government and daily life, than one has effectively given implicit consent to any totalitarian system which is supported by 50.1% of the populace. in the end, it is not I who supports dictatorship, but you.

On November 06 2012 11:05 itsjustatank wrote:


I would prefer that 'majority rule' actually constitutes a majority. When you see that the number of people who could have voted but did not dwarfs the popular vote totals of the two main party contenders consistently, it isn't actually majority rule.

On November 06 2012 11:07 sc2superfan101 wrote:

but for what purpose, other than to satisfy the rather vague principle of "majority should mean majority", would we actually encourage voter turnout? if it does not lead to objectively better results than why should it be called the objectively better system?