Voting

[champthom]

I was going to post this in the Chris voting thread, but I felt it was a bit off topic for the Chris forum. I don't like delving into my politics here, so I won't get too in depth but I thought maybe we can discuss our thoughts on voting in general.

One of the issues I have with voting is that low information voters have just as much sway as someone who studies the candidates and issues seriously and they probably vote more in numbers. In a democratic system like the US, everyone's vote is the same, which means that the vote of someone who spends no time studying the issues has just as much say as someone who spends time. Likewise, there are plenty of people who vote on single issues - think Chris with his comment about voting for pro-LGBT candidates. I believe one of the factors in George W. Bush's reelection victory in 2004 was because he was able to get the support of people who only cared about one issue, particularly issues like abortion and only voted for Bush because he was pro-life and John Kerry wasn't. There's no real incentive to study the issues - why spend all that time when your vote won't necessarily have any more sway? So you decide to vote on a party line or because you like one candidate's picture over the other or what my friend did who had no idea who the candidates were but voted for the non-incumbents "to mix things up."

Here's a quote by Henry David Thoreau from "Civil Disobedience" on voting:

“All voting is a sort of gaming, like checkers or back gammon, with a slight moral tinge to it, a playing with right and wrong, with moral questions; and betting naturally accompanies it. The character of the voters is not staked. I cast my vote, perchance, as I think right; but I am not vitally concerned that that right should prevail. I am willing to leave it to the majority. Its obligation, therefore, never exceeds that of expediency. Even voting for the right is doing nothing for it. It is only expressing to men feebly your desire that it should prevail. A wise man will not leave the right to the mercy of chance, nor wish it to prevail through the power of the majority.”

 

[AnimuGinger]

Low information, stupid voters, and the fact that the same money buys each party, just in a different amount. Chances are your vote is useless, so long as lemmings exist. That's why I vote straight Libertarian. Except I voted for Guvna' Snyder. And to shoot wolves.

 

[Hollywood Hulk Hogan]

Brother, just be sure to be an informed voter and go out and vote. The Hulkster doesn't care who you vote for, just vote for which candidate you would like to see win. That is what makes you a Real American, brother!

 

[Marvin]

See, I don't know if I'd say voters are "stupid".

You care about something precisely as much as it impacts your life. It's not stupid not to give a shit about things that are irrelevant to you. In fact, I'd say that's precisely the purpose of voting: to determine what the people want.

Personally, I care about drugs and public transportation. Those are the issues I research and they almost entirely decide my opinion on a candidate.

Also, your votes aren't useless if people agree with you. I'd agree that someone's vote is useless if they live somewhere where they're an extreme minority. Otherwise your voice gets heard.

 

[Marvin]

Also, to continue from the Chris voting thread...

Though people fuck up, I also don't believe these are "malfunctions". I have never trusted Diebold, and maybe I'm a liberal, but my first thought is that some Democrat in Virginia rigged the machines.

I prefer the paper trail. Papers can be destroyed, but at least they existed at some point.

(No, obviously, it would be dumb to have the votes switch to the Democrat candidate right in front of the voter, but let's be honest, this state produced a man who thinks wearing a shirt over his head is a disguise. I'm not about to discount the possibility some operative fucked up while attempting to tamper with votes).

All other things being equal, machines are always more trustable than groups of people. Trust issues with machines are fixed once and thus fixed forever. If you're worrying about vote tampering and you're counting the votes with people, that's a problem that you can never completely fix. People are always susceptible to persuasion.

 

[Datiko]

And you could say Obama won his first presidency through mobilizing voters on a single abstract issue of "Change" without any actual substance. America's two party system is the problem. In my case I care deeply about issues of finance, trade, and national security, but I have spent my entire adult life living under various national welfare systems so concepts like single-payer healthcare aren't scary to me. Whom do I vote for? The party who succeeds at A is probably going to muck up B. The other party might have good intentions with B but lacks the experience with A to implement it. I think the only rational solution in a national election is to pick one or two issues which are important for you and hope for the best. Business, trade, and life will always exist in spite of government.

 

[klystron]

I would argue that we, as people (non-politicians) are more than a single vote. We are the opportunity to talk to others and spread our ideas. We are a chance to overhear a conversation and share a website that might better inform them. We are information for the low-information.

 

[The_Hissing_Vigilant]

You should have a licence to vote. Like having a drivers licence. If you can't pass the test you can't vote.
I don't know.......I'm half joking about that.

Its just that showing up and pulling a lever, its like a partipatipn trophy kind of thing.
Everyone has their say no matter what...fuck those who put in actual thought and effort. It took me five years to come to the conclusion that I lean to the right. I put a lot of thought into somthing thing or I see someone else do the same a d than we are equal to those who just get swayed by public opinion, or are just selfish about their immediate needs and fleeting emotions, like Chris and his equallity vote.

 

[Marvin]

You should have a licence to vote. Like having a drivers licence. If you can't pass the test you can't vote.
I don't know.......I'm half joking about that.

Its just that showing up and pulling a lever, its like a partipatipn trophy kind of thing.
Everyone has their say no matter what...fuck those who put in actual thought and effort. It took me five years to come to the conclusion that I lean to the right. I put a lot of thought into somthing thing or I see someone else do the same a d than we are equal to those who just get swayed by public opinion, or are just selfish about their immediate needs and fleeting emotions, like Chris and his equallity vote.

The government is supposed to represent the will of the people. Giving everyone, including dumbasses like Chris, the right to vote increases public confidence that their will is being represented.

Heh, also, I'm selfish while voting as well. Again, that's how it should be. I'm using my vote to voice my opinion on something. (Of course, I do consider the larger implications of my vote, but that's also selfishly motivated, because I want to improve the country in which I live in. Third world dictatorships aren't fun to live in.)

 

[The_Hissing_Vigilant]

Well

The government is supposed to represent the will of the people. Giving everyone, including dumbasses like Chris, the right to vote increases public confidence that their will is being represented.

Heh, also, I'm selfish while voting as well. Again, that's how it should be. I'm using my vote to voice my opinion on something. (Of course, I do consider the larger implications of my vote, but that's also selfishly motivated, because I want to improve the country in which I live in. Third world dictatorships aren't fun to live in.)

Your right. Its better here than third world dicktator ships

Well it seems your more self-interested than selfish. Those are two different things. Its good to be out for your intetests, but it's the IRL Peter Griffen-like Whim worship.....thats selfihsness without the self.

In more into outcome, than spur of the moment feels.

Im in Canada. Our democracy is backed up by a constitution, like the states. At least their is a contitution to guide the will of the people.

 

[Ariel]

In Australia we get a fine for not voting and the ballot papers for the senate look like this

+ a another small voting card for the MP we are voting for in our area. We have to do this twice every 4 years for Federal and State parliaments.

To me the idea of not voting is strange, there are some people who don't ever register or number the card 1,2,3,4,5 etc
Its important to have a say and understand exactly what your party is promising and what their past track record is.

 

[Tragi-Chan]

The problem I have, speaking as a Britfag, is that there's no one who really represents me. I don't trust any of the three main parties not to fuck up (as all have done within the last decade). The others are incompetent or objectionable to me. However, at the same time, I do vote, because I feel like if I don't then I haven't expressed my opinion and therefore have no right to complain when David Cameron decides to sell the NHS to McDonald's or whatever. I tend to just vote for the crazy independent candidate (last time it was a guy who thought cake shops were going to be nationalised IIRC), but at the same time this isn't expressing my actual opinion and so, to me, it's not an adequate solution. I don't know, basically I think I'd like to start a political party with no policies or opinions just to take the protest votes.

 

[Roger Rabbit]

In the shithole I live in, they make it so easy.

 

[Holdek]

Personally, I care about drugs and public transportation. Those are the issues I research and they almost entirely decide my opinion on a candidate.

Yeah but all that research can be canceled out by some dude who votes against your preferred candidate, not because they disagree with your candidate on any issues, but because they don't know anything about the candidates but your candidate's opponent shares the last name as the dude's sister-in-law and she's pretty cool, so why not?*

*This was actually a reason cited by a voter who helped make the election of this guy possible: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_Greene#Questions_about_candidacy

 

[Uzumaki]

You want to know about voting. I'm here to tell you about voting. Imagine you're locked in a huge underground nightclub filled with sinners, whores, freaks and unnameable things that rape pit bulls for fun. And you ain't allowed out until you all vote on what you're going to do tonight. You like to put your feet up and watch "Republican Party Reservation". They like to have sex with normal people using knives, guns and brand-new sexual organs that you did not know existed. So you vote for television, and everyone else, as far as the eye can see, votes to fuck you with switchblades. That's voting. You're welcome.

Edit: Another one

I always thought people were essentially bright. Distracted, sure, and weak, and beaten, but never stupid. And then you show them, here's the two people who want to be president. One is evil, but you can deal with him, because he actually harbors beliefs. The other one will tell any lie, wear any mask, to become president, and not only that, he fucking hates you, and he's doing this just so he can make your lives hell. And who do you think they vote for? Stupid.

I get all my political views from comic books.

 

[Hyperion]

I've never voted. Probably never will. I'm exercising my freedom of speech by choosing not to speak.

 

[Marvin]

Yeah but all that research can be canceled out by some dude who votes against your preferred candidate, not because they disagree with your candidate on any issues, but because they don't know anything about the candidates but your candidate's opponent shares the last name as the dude's sister-in-law and she's pretty cool, so why not?*

*This was actually a reason cited by a voter who helped make the election of this guy possible: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_Greene#Questions_about_candidacy

People will optimize their happiness. So if it's not worth it to people to research the candidates deeply enough, then the public has decided they're happy enough with the current situation.

(In practice, I'm not too worried about that being a big problem. I'm mostly happy with my state, and the parts I'm unhappy about seem to be changing.)

(Except for old people. I hate old people voters.)

 

[Holdek]

People will optimize their happiness. So if it's not worth it to people to research the candidates deeply enough, then the public has decided they're happy enough with the current situation.

Yeah but if that's the case shouldn't they just not vote? We require competence tests for just about everything else in life, why not voting (besides historical issues with literacy tests in the South and such)?

 

[Marvin]

Yeah but if that's the case shouldn't they just not vote? We require competence tests for just about everything else in life, why not voting (besides historical issues with literacy tests in the South and such)?

Historical issues are exactly it. I cannot conceive of a valid competence test for voting that I'd be comfortable with. Like, if the prospective voter said "I'm voting for Mr X for reason Y", that's justification enough for me. Who am I to tell them what is or isn't a good enough reason to vote for a candidate?

And such a low standard for voting tests doesn't really mean much. The candidates could broadcast verbatim lines to give election judges to get in the door.

Of course, it should be pointed out that I'm largely happy with the voters in my state.* I don't always agree with everyone, but I feel like my voice is heard when I vote. It's possible my opinion might change if I lived in some shithole state.

* Except for how we only barely passed gay marriage. That's embarrassing.

 

[Uzumaki]

I feel like my voice is heard when I vote.

It's possible to mathematically prove that you're wrong about this.