|
Hong Kong9164 Posts
On March 02 2012 03:12 mynameisgreat11 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2012 03:07 itsjustatank wrote:People actually don't vote in the United States. In comparison to other democracies, the United States typically has significantly smaller voter turnout than its peers. It comes down to people feeling that the costs of voting far outweigh the benefits of actually going out to vote. The costs are numerous: having to become knowledgable about the candidates, physically going out to the polling station, taking time off work in order to vote, etc. Along with those obvious costs, there are psychological costs as well: feeling like your vote is being wasted is the largest one. All this can, and does, add up to voting being very costly to the average American, and our voter turnout rates reflect this. This relationship can be expressed in a formula: Reward = (Probability of winning * Benefits of winning versus losing ) - Costs of voting A lot of why this is so has to do with the prevalance of winner-take-all majoritarian voting systems in America. In addition, the constitution promotes the continuation of a two-party political consensus. Other democracies may operate in some sort of a proportional representation system, which promote the existence and significance of third parties, with alternative voting systems accompanying their elections. These end up increasing the utility of voting for the individual voter and leads to typically higher voter turnout rates. While all of that may be true, I would say it is a separate issue from what I brought up. My reason for not voting isn't because I know my candidates won't win, but rather my belief that government is run by wealthy who use their positions to further their own interests. I think the problem is perpetual. Rich use positions of power to make themselves richer, which moves them even further to the top.
Actually, it's not a separate issue. What you described in your OP was your personal calculus as to whether or not voting was, in your case, useful to you. Believe it or not, it corresponds with that formula and my analysis pretty well.
"Government is run by the wealthy" still works within the existing political structure, with its political parties and voting systems. You see two major parties and think that there isn't much differentiating them; but because of the voting system, you feel like a vote for the available alternatives is a waste so you don't vote in the end.
|
This is true for most countries, if you want to change things you have to do it yourself or through people you know. Voting in whatever election is not really changing anything. Start a movement, start lobbying yourself, become a politician, etc.
|
[image blocked]
User was warned for this post
|
On March 02 2012 03:18 itsjustatank wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2012 03:12 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On March 02 2012 03:07 itsjustatank wrote:People actually don't vote in the United States. In comparison to other democracies, the United States typically has significantly smaller voter turnout than its peers. It comes down to people feeling that the costs of voting far outweigh the benefits of actually going out to vote. The costs are numerous: having to become knowledgable about the candidates, physically going out to the polling station, taking time off work in order to vote, etc. Along with those obvious costs, there are psychological costs as well: feeling like your vote is being wasted is the largest one. All this can, and does, add up to voting being very costly to the average American, and our voter turnout rates reflect this. This relationship can be expressed in a formula: Reward = (Probability of winning * Benefits of winning versus losing ) - Costs of voting A lot of why this is so has to do with the prevalance of winner-take-all majoritarian voting systems in America. In addition, the constitution promotes the continuation of a two-party political consensus. Other democracies may operate in some sort of a proportional representation system, which promote the existence and significance of third parties, with alternative voting systems accompanying their elections. These end up increasing the utility of voting for the individual voter and leads to typically higher voter turnout rates. While all of that may be true, I would say it is a separate issue from what I brought up. My reason for not voting isn't because I know my candidates won't win, but rather my belief that government is run by wealthy who use their positions to further their own interests. I think the problem is perpetual. Rich use positions of power to make themselves richer, which moves them even further to the top. Actually, it's not a separate issue. What you described in your OP was your personal calculus as to whether or not voting was, in your case, useful to you. Believe it or not, it corresponds with that formula and my analysis pretty well. "Government is run by the wealthy" still works within the existing political structure, with its political parties and voting systems. You see two major parties and think that there isn't much differentiating them; but because of the voting system, you feel like a vote for the available alternatives is a waste so you don't vote in the end.
No, I still think its different. I interpret what you brought up as an analysis of the costs of voting vs. the likelihood of my vote electing the person I want.
I think that's certainly important, but not what I was getting at. I certainly think there is a clear distinction between the two parties. I don't vote because I think the federal government is run by a very small, very wealthy, elite class, and the idea of US policies being decided 'by the people' is completely untrue.
|
On March 02 2012 03:16 KwarK wrote:
Statistically no one vote ever makes a difference, no major election is decided by a single vote. The argument "but if everyone thought like that then..." is meaningless because there is no connection between your choice to vote and anyone else's, if you go into the ballot room and spoil your ballot then nobody else will do anything different because of it. There is absolutely no value to voting beyond any personal gratification you get out of it.
It gives me the right to complain about the government, if I voted and my guy lost ^^
If you don't vote and you still complain, I have no sympathy for you. Plus, for what it's worth, engaging in discussions about why you're voting for someone can absolutely sway people's opinions.
|
What's really missing is an option on the ballot paper that says "none of the above".
Almost all media coverage on the issue of the declining percentage of voters vs. non-voters doesn't distinguish between those who don't vote because they aren't interested in politics and those who don't vote because they are interested in politics. Even worse, more often than not, the latter are depicted as though they were the former. Of course, this isn't likely to happen in the near future, simply because the same lobbies that profit from the system as it is have the interest to decredit all those who refuse to vote as ignorant, no matter their actual intentions.
|
|
|
On March 02 2012 03:22 OldManSenex wrote:
[image blocked]
I am emo, thank you for pointing it out.
What did you think about the 99% protesters? Generally, they seemed to be arguing the same things I am, but I would say that they accomplished pretty much zilch.
|
On March 02 2012 03:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2012 03:16 KwarK wrote:
Statistically no one vote ever makes a difference, no major election is decided by a single vote. The argument "but if everyone thought like that then..." is meaningless because there is no connection between your choice to vote and anyone else's, if you go into the ballot room and spoil your ballot then nobody else will do anything different because of it. There is absolutely no value to voting beyond any personal gratification you get out of it. It gives me the right to complain about the government, if I voted and my guy lost ^^ If you don't vote and you still complain, I have no sympathy for you. Plus, for what it's worth, engaging in discussions about why you're voting for someone can absolutely sway people's opinions.
Unless that reason is god told me to, like 43% of voters polled in Bush's second term win
|
The USA is actually a republic, people throw the word democracy around like it makes us better than everyone. In a democracy people vote on issues, this is was not feasible with the size the the country and even with the technology today it is not realistic. The republic system allows people to vote for other people to vote for them, they believe this person will represent their views properly.
To be honest, I don't know what governmental system is best, or any of that. We are a great social experiment, for the rest of the world to watch and judge.
|
Hong Kong9164 Posts
On March 02 2012 03:22 mynameisgreat11 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2012 03:18 itsjustatank wrote:On March 02 2012 03:12 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On March 02 2012 03:07 itsjustatank wrote:People actually don't vote in the United States. In comparison to other democracies, the United States typically has significantly smaller voter turnout than its peers. It comes down to people feeling that the costs of voting far outweigh the benefits of actually going out to vote. The costs are numerous: having to become knowledgable about the candidates, physically going out to the polling station, taking time off work in order to vote, etc. Along with those obvious costs, there are psychological costs as well: feeling like your vote is being wasted is the largest one. All this can, and does, add up to voting being very costly to the average American, and our voter turnout rates reflect this. This relationship can be expressed in a formula: Reward = (Probability of winning * Benefits of winning versus losing ) - Costs of voting A lot of why this is so has to do with the prevalance of winner-take-all majoritarian voting systems in America. In addition, the constitution promotes the continuation of a two-party political consensus. Other democracies may operate in some sort of a proportional representation system, which promote the existence and significance of third parties, with alternative voting systems accompanying their elections. These end up increasing the utility of voting for the individual voter and leads to typically higher voter turnout rates. While all of that may be true, I would say it is a separate issue from what I brought up. My reason for not voting isn't because I know my candidates won't win, but rather my belief that government is run by wealthy who use their positions to further their own interests. I think the problem is perpetual. Rich use positions of power to make themselves richer, which moves them even further to the top. Actually, it's not a separate issue. What you described in your OP was your personal calculus as to whether or not voting was, in your case, useful to you. Believe it or not, it corresponds with that formula and my analysis pretty well. "Government is run by the wealthy" still works within the existing political structure, with its political parties and voting systems. You see two major parties and think that there isn't much differentiating them; but because of the voting system, you feel like a vote for the available alternatives is a waste so you don't vote in the end. No, I still think its different. I interpret what you brought up as an analysis of the costs of voting vs. the likelihood of my vote electing the person I want. I think that's certainly important, but not what I was getting at. I certainly think there is a clear distinction between the two parties. I don't vote because I think the federal government is run by a very small, very wealthy, elite class, and the idea of US policies being decided 'by the people' is completely untrue.
Fair enough, I still think the analysis fits your description. It is also true, though, that the analysis may not really take into account a potential complete lack of faith in a voter's electoral, political, and democratic governance structure. I don't share your opinion, but I do recognize it.
|
United States43350 Posts
On March 02 2012 03:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2012 03:16 KwarK wrote:
Statistically no one vote ever makes a difference, no major election is decided by a single vote. The argument "but if everyone thought like that then..." is meaningless because there is no connection between your choice to vote and anyone else's, if you go into the ballot room and spoil your ballot then nobody else will do anything different because of it. There is absolutely no value to voting beyond any personal gratification you get out of it. It gives me the right to complain about the government, if I voted and my guy lost ^^ If you don't vote and you still complain, I have no sympathy for you. Plus, for what it's worth, engaging in discussions about why you're voting for someone can absolutely sway people's opinions.
I'm happy to engage in political debate and consider myself extremely informed on the subjects but I also understand basic statistics and game theory. The facts about the relationship between your vote and the outcome doesn't change depending upon how politically involved you feel you are.
|
On March 02 2012 03:26 Yownine wrote:
The USA is actually a republic, people throw the word democracy around like it makes us better than everyone. In a democracy people vote on issues, this is was not feasible with the size the the country and even with the technology today it is not realistic. The republic system allows people to vote for other people to vote for them, they believe this person will represent their views properly.
To be honest, I don't know what governmental system is best, or any of that. We are a great social experiment, for the rest of the world to watch and judge.
Ha, I'd say the world doesn't judge us too kindly 
|
A lot of young people feel that way. I personally have a few friends who are adamant about not voting. The problem is you're always making a decision trying to pick the lesser of two evils but the fact is, ALL politicians are self centered, lying scum, it's just part of the job requirement.
|
The US electoral system is not really a democracy anymore. More like legalised corruption. Its sad really what has happend to US.
|
On March 02 2012 03:27 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2012 03:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 02 2012 03:16 KwarK wrote:
Statistically no one vote ever makes a difference, no major election is decided by a single vote. The argument "but if everyone thought like that then..." is meaningless because there is no connection between your choice to vote and anyone else's, if you go into the ballot room and spoil your ballot then nobody else will do anything different because of it. There is absolutely no value to voting beyond any personal gratification you get out of it. It gives me the right to complain about the government, if I voted and my guy lost ^^ If you don't vote and you still complain, I have no sympathy for you. Plus, for what it's worth, engaging in discussions about why you're voting for someone can absolutely sway people's opinions. I'm happy to engage in political debate and consider myself extremely informed on the subjects but I also understand basic statistics and game theory. The facts about the relationship between your vote and the outcome doesn't change depending upon how politically involved you feel you are.
And an individuals vote is actually pretty damn close to useless in the electoral system....
|
On March 02 2012 03:28 HappyChris wrote:
The US electoral system is not really a democracy anymore. More like legalised corruption. Its sad really what has happend to US.
It's always been like that man. The founding fathers? A bunch of rich white dudes with slaves who wrote down some shit that made life better for them.
|
like it or not that's the system in place. it's more or less all you get. i know the urge to opt out is powerful, and feeling of powerlessness/hopelessness make participating the last thing you want to do...but sometimes what you want or feel like doing and what the best thing to do actually is are incongruent...
i think that if you actually want to change anything about how fucked up the system is, doing nothing...well, does nothing.
|
I love voting...unfortunately I refuse to vote for "The lesser of two evils". Thus I refuse to vote until I am offered a real choice. As it stands, all the candidates of the past 10 years+ have only differed on issues that had jack all to do with running a country. That is why nothing changes and things continue progressing down the path of destruction.
|
On March 02 2012 03:30 philosophize wrote:
like it or not that's the system in place. it's more or less all you get. i know the urge to opt out is powerful, and feeling of powerlessness/hopelessness make participating the last thing you want to do...but sometimes what you want or feel like doing and what the best thing to do actually is are incongruent...
i think that if you actually want to change anything about how fucked up the system is, doing nothing...well, does nothing.
True, what opting out does nothing.
But what can I realistically do?
-Vote: We can argue about this one, but I feel pretty strongly that my vote either doesn't matter, or at best, has an infinitesimal effect.
-Protest: Well, using the African-American civil rights movement as an example, if I protest in a lot of different ways, and gather millions of other people, for 300 years, then I have a shot.
-Work in politics: This is speculative, but I'd imagine that since I am poor and have no connections, I would never, ever be in a position to make any impact on anything.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
