Why do people in the US vote? - Page 4

On March 02 2012 03:56 stokes17 wrote:
I mean you seem upset that money and effort matter more in an election than any 1 individual vote. I feel like that statement has and will always be true, how could it be any other way? But then you state that no matter what you do; the political leaning of your state is immobile. As though those 2 statements are interconnected. I disagree

I think Marco Rubio is a perfect example of a politician using his means and effort to change the political leaning of a state/population in a positive way. If you aren't familiar Rubio is Cuban American republican senator from Florida with influence NEVER seen in a freshman senator. He was the one who told the R Primary candidates to chill out with the offense Immigration talk, and they all listened. He's given the conservative Cuban population (which is massive and previously not represented because they all voted Dem, because the old FL republican guard was pretty anti Cuban)

If you are upset that your 1 single vote isn't having a big enough impact, then put some effort into it. I think the amount of effort it takes to vote (none) is perfectly equal to the amount of power in a single vote (none). Now if you can use the effort of 1 person (you) and work hard, then the amount of change you create should be pretty equal to the effort you put in (Rubio put in a ton of effort and changed the entire landscape of Florida Politics)

Maybe I'm just missing your point, but if you think ONLY the super rich can play in state/federal politics I think you are very incorrect. Yes you need probably close to a 7 figure budget to win a senate seat, and probably 50x that to win a presidential race, but that doesn't mean your net worth has to be in the ultra rich/mogul category, or even that you need them in your pocket to win. And State senator/representative campaigns can be run on a tenth or less than a federal senate campaign.

I see money and effort as more or less analogous (as does the supreme court lololol citizens united joke). So if you are dissatisfied with your impact on the political system, put more effort into it. If you're ultra rich its easy because you already put in effort to get tons of cash , just pay 50k to watch Obama eat dinner. If you aren't then you need to put some man hours in campaigning; going door to door, making phone calls, setting up town hall meetings, whatever. But to think there is a way to eliminate money from politics, and that that would somehow increase the weight of any 1 individual vote, is a pretty naive point of view, and not one that fruitful discussion can come from Imo.

On March 02 2012 03:41 preZzle wrote:


I think atleast in Germany you can just mark two options to make your vote invalid, so your vote gets counted, but not for any politician/party; could be wrong though. Isnt that possible in the U.S. ?

On March 02 2012 03:56 partisan wrote:
I can't see how you can complain about not having a voice when you refuse to exercise it. Believe it or not, representatives will listen to their constituents if you have actually contact them, or organize opposition/support for a measure.

Democracy is not a passive system, you have to be involved for it to work correctly. The reason that interest groups and the monied class are having such an easy time pursuing their agenda is because they have no counter balance. If you think the system isn't working for you then you have a responsibility to change it. Go vote. Start a petition. Do something other than create a forum post for something that has been discussed ad nauseum.

On March 02 2012 03:58 Rannasha wrote:
From an outside PoV I feel that the US democracy is greatly held back by 2 major factors: The 2-party-system and the winner-takes-it-all practice that comes with the electoral college. These two things maintain eachother and neither is beneficial for a healthy democracy.

New parties have no chance of getting a foot in the door at the federal level, as they need the monumental accomplishment of winning out in an entire state. That means that people are stuck with democrats and republicans, who each only supply a single candidate for the presedential elections. So a lot of people are basically forced to choose the lesser of two evils ("Do I vote for the guy that is on the other side of the political spectrum or the guy that's on the same side as me, but who is batshit insane?").

Most European democracies form a government by coalition of 2 or 3 parties. Most countries have 5 or more reasonable parties to choose from (i.e. not 1-issue-parties), which means that it's way easier to finding a party that you agree with on most points. New parties will only get a handful of seats in the relevant house/senate/congress/whatever-it's-called, but that's enough for them to make their voice heard and to grow their influence if they are well-liked.

The coalition-style setup has the added benefit of dampening the more extreme sides of each party. With one party ruling, they can hammer through whatever they want. When you have to compromise, you usually come to solutions that are acceptable for a larger part of the population.

Finally, the electoral college means that if you're in a republican state there's literally no point in voting as a democrat and vice versa. Since the weight of each state doesn't reflect its current population, votes in some states are simply worth more than others.

tdlr: Get rid of the winner-takes-it-all electoral college and ensure that new parties have a chance to compete in elections without the current "entry barrier" of having to win an entire state.

On March 02 2012 04:12 Pyskee wrote:
I didn't vote in the primaries a few days ago becuase I have literally no clue about any of the politicians right now. The whole two party system is just getting annoying and I feel like I'm watching two rival football fans yell at each other. So I've just stopped caring for the most part. Weird how I paid attention when I couldn't vote, and now that I can I've been apathetic towards it all.

It's a real shame too, but most people in America don't realize the power of voting and democracy because we've always had it. When I visited Italy, my friend's cousin was talking about how Italy had such a high voting turn out because they don't want another Mussolini to deal with.

And yeah, the electoral college is pretty retarded too.

On March 02 2012 03:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:


It gives me the right to complain about the government, if I voted and my guy lost ^^

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.

On March 02 2012 04:15 Jerubaal wrote:
Oh boy, lots of points...

1. The vast majority of campaign money comes from small donations. Please don't be an ignorant fuck. Obama could raise as much as 1 billion in this next election and the money coming from the Super PAC might be 100 million.

"Religions collect hundreds of billions annually, tax-free mind you, and then turn around and pump that money right back into congress." Wut.

I don't understand this anti-incorporation nonsense. So you're saying that one person has a right to express their opinion but a group of people don't? I suspect this phrase just gets parroted and nobody really thinks about it at all.

2. There are lots of explanations for low voter turnout other than general ignorance or apathy. Political parties in the U.S. have muck weaker associations compared to those in Europe. The goal of campaigns in U.S. elections is 'persuasion' rather than 'mobilization', and, of course, the parties just aren't as strong so mobilization is fairly weak. It isn't always like this and there have been different cycles with more or less mobilization.

3. Democracy vs Republic: Who cares? A better description of the government would be a mixed government, with monarchical (executive), aristocratic (supreme court), and democratic (Congress). You vote for all of them in different ways to prevent one element of society or government from becoming too powerful.

Removing the electoral college would make it a pure democracy. Remove the electoral college so we can have a tyranny of the majority and make lots of votes not count!

4. So I've just gone over a bunch of reasons why voting in the U.S. works, but what seems to be the problem? The OP did say it. The inmates are running the asylum, only the inmates are you (and your parents and family and friends and everyone else of course). So you go out and vote and when you don't get your way, since you don't actually know a lot about politics, you concoct a bunch of reasons why your opinion wasn't ratified: The system is broken and controlled by elites. Everyone else is brainwashed. The opposition is evil and insincere. The rationalizations of an immature mind that can't seem to understand why not everyone agrees with them.

And, of course, the irony is that you are the majority and still complaining. The Democrats have been a 8-25% majority since the 1940s, yet why do they act like they are always in the minority? Why do you attack Fox News exclusively even though its viewpoints are vastly underrepresented in the media? Because you aren't interested in democratic process or a balanced government, you're interested in having your ideology implemented on a national scale. How do you stage a revolution from the top, though? The audience that is being pandered to is you.

On March 02 2012 04:05 firehand101 wrote:
Ron Paul is your only choice. Read up on him, i know you will like him

On March 02 2012 04:15 Jerubaal wrote:
Oh boy, lots of points...

1. The vast majority of campaign money comes from small donations. Please don't be an ignorant fuck. Obama could raise as much as 1 billion in this next election and the money coming from the Super PAC might be 100 million.

"Religions collect hundreds of billions annually, tax-free mind you, and then turn around and pump that money right back into congress." Wut.

I don't understand this anti-incorporation nonsense. So you're saying that one person has a right to express their opinion but a group of people don't? I suspect this phrase just gets parroted and nobody really thinks about it at all.

2. There are lots of explanations for low voter turnout other than general ignorance or apathy. Political parties in the U.S. have muck weaker associations compared to those in Europe. The goal of campaigns in U.S. elections is 'persuasion' rather than 'mobilization', and, of course, the parties just aren't as strong so mobilization is fairly weak. It isn't always like this and there have been different cycles with more or less mobilization.

3. Democracy vs Republic: Who cares? A better description of the government would be a mixed government, with monarchical (executive), aristocratic (supreme court), and democratic (Congress). You vote for all of them in different ways to prevent one element of society or government from becoming too powerful.

Removing the electoral college would make it a pure democracy. Remove the electoral college so we can have a tyranny of the majority and make lots of votes not count!

4. So I've just gone over a bunch of reasons why voting in the U.S. works, but what seems to be the problem? The OP did say it. The inmates are running the asylum, only the inmates are you (and your parents and family and friends and everyone else of course). So you go out and vote and when you don't get your way, since you don't actually know a lot about politics, you concoct a bunch of reasons why your opinion wasn't ratified: The system is broken and controlled by elites. Everyone else is brainwashed. The opposition is evil and insincere. The rationalizations of an immature mind that can't seem to understand why not everyone agrees with them.

And, of course, the irony is that you are the majority and still complaining. The Democrats have been a 8-25% majority since the 1940s, yet why do they act like they are always in the minority? Why do you attack Fox News exclusively even though its viewpoints are vastly underrepresented in the media? Because you aren't interested in democratic process or a balanced government, you're interested in having your ideology implemented on a national scale. How do you stage a revolution from the top, though? The audience that is being pandered to is you.