Get Out the Vote Efforts are Terribly Dangerous

Every election cycle, the airwaves, television, newspapers, and every other form of communication get filled with entreaties from (dubiously) well intentioned folk begging people to vote. They act as if this is a universally good thing.

Well, they are wrong.

Anyone that has to be cajoled into voting probably shouldn't be voting in the first place. Anyone who cares so little about the process that they are not naturally inclined to vote probably shouldn't be voting. Most importantly, anyone who is clueless about the issues DEFINITELY should not be voting.

I've been wanting to post about this for a long time as it is something that really bothers me. The problem is not too few people voting. The problem is too many uninformed and uneducated people voting.

Uninformed and uneducated voters are the types of voters most easily swayed by political chicanery, smoke screens, empty sound bites, pie-in-the-sky false promises, and other trickery. They are also the types most easily bought off by one politician or another's promise to bring home some pork directed at that type of voter.

We should not be encouraging such people to vote. We should be encouraging such people to stay home and let the grown ups make the decisions.

Do you let a 3 year old decide what they will eat for every meal? Heck no. All they'd eat is ice cream and candy.

I came across an article today that was the final impetus that prompted my post.

Stay Home; Don't vote.

Quote:

---

Ilya Somin, a professor at the George Mason School of Law, published a study in the Cato Institute's magazine about voter ignorance that offers a peek into the empty spaces between many voters' ears.

75% of voters apparently were completely unaware of the fact that the federal government adopted a huge prescription drug benefit as part of Medicare during the term of President Bush. Fully 65 percent did not know that the government had passed a ban on partial birth abortions.

Sixty-one percent thought, incorrectly, that there had been a net job loss in 2004. Only 32 percent were aware that Social Security is one of the two largest expenditure areas in the federal government.

Only 22 percent knew that the current unemployment rate is lower than the average for the past 30 years.

Political observers make much of swings in voter sentiment -- like the elevation of Republicans to majority status in the House of Representatives in 1994. Yet Somin reports that in the election of 2002, only 32 percent of voters knew that the Republican Party controlled the House. Hmmm.

---

Honestly, our nation would be better served if people who didn't have the time or interest to learn about the issues just stayed home.

Actually yeah, I agree with this. I recently had to stand up for an undergraduate here at CSU in cleveland that said she wasn't voting because she didn't know anything about either candidate other than Bush was the president right now.

Ironically the republicans I was with said "That's fine, that's your call". The democrats that were there, at the bar, went ballistic and called her un-American for refusing to cast a ballot in the "right" direction... ie for Kerry

Mebe we should just do things a la Starship Troopers. Earn the right the vote through service. I dunno.. it's probably great on paper but I don't know how well it would take to practical application.

There would probably need to be a major event for the government to take that kind of control.

j/r

What!?!?!?!! You mean make people have to actually EARN something! Are you crazy! That makes no sense. /sarcasm

*steals Levastire's line*

"Tough, but fair.."

j/r

I never viewed it like that- but I believe its absolutely right. These are the t.v. junkies that sway to the propoganda so easily, maybe the voting system is right where it should be. But theres always something deeper than meets the eye- this is a sad glimpse of how out of tune many americans are with whats going on around them.

Or do like Glenn Beck suggests, make a giant waffle face, parade it through town and tell folks to vote November 3rd. If folks are that easily swayed that they'll listen to a giant waffle face, do you really want them to be voting, after all?

Photos available here, at the Project Longface update page.

I couldn't agree more. When people tell me that they want their vote counted and that is the reason they are voting, I tell them that the best way to have their vote counted without hurting this country is to not cast it. Their vote will be tallied up with those of other registered voters who did NOT vote.

Of course, the theory is that people should actually form opinions. The idea that "I'll work for my country by voting" (Anna Glawari, The Merry Widow) - that is, that it is in some way benefiting America when you cast a vote - is bosh. All voting does is make your say known - and if you don't have a say, why say it? The concept of optional voting is not bad, really.

It realy is a shame imho that our fore fathers fought for Democracy in the countries that have it, and yet it is not appreciated by the a large majority.

What would these none voters say if the right to vote was taken away from them, well there would be uproar, right!!.

Also, if these political mandates were actualy followed through by the newley elected governments, it may help people vote, rather than giving us the reason not to waste time voting for someone that isnt going to follow through in the first place.

Swings and roundabouts, but i doubt things will ever change. Voter appethy is not always what it seems, alot of people simply refuse to vote because they dont agree with any of the candidates, which in its self is a vote of none confidence. Then there are always the folk that have been mentioned, those that simply arent aware of the mandates, and those that dont even care. The fact that alot of Americans know the latest advertising jingle better than the American Constitution speaks volumes.

A rant, and maybe a looney one at that, but i doubt i am far off the mark.

:cow

Bramond:
What would these none voters say if the right to vote was taken away from them, well there would be uproar, right!!.

Exactly what Democracy is about. The right to vote or not to vote. Remember that some people specifically do not vote because there is nobody that represents their interests. One should not be forced to pick the lesser evil. By not voting, they are showing their disinterest in the available options.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by karahd
Bramond:
What would these none voters say if the right to vote was taken away from them, well there would be uproar, right!!.

Exactly what Democracy is about. The right to vote or not to vote. Remember that some people specifically do not vote because there is nobody that represents their interests. One should not be forced to pick the lesser evil. By not voting, they are showing their disinterest in the available options.

---

Yeah, just what i said my friend.

;) :)

Of course, if you don't vote, you can't really say after the election, "It would have been better if So-and-so had won". Maybe that should be the plank of the please-vote argument: "Back your opinion when you say you don't like your President!"

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bramond
It realy is a shame imho that our fore fathers fought for Democracy in the countries that have it, and yet it is not appreciated by the a large majority.

A rant, and maybe a looney one at that, but i doubt i am far off the mark.

:cow

---

You are really far off the mark. When the Constitution first came into existence only white, male, landowners had the right to vote. The founding fathers did not feel that everyone should vote, nor did they wish everyone to vote. Some of our founding fathers really thought that blacks were non-human not capable of higher thought.

While our founding fathers were genious, they certainly didnt argue what you claim they did.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Rosuav
Of course, if you don't vote, you can't really say after the election, "It would have been better if So-and-so had won". Maybe that should be the plank of the please-vote argument: "Back your opinion when you say you don't like your President!"

---

I was waiting for this to be said. WHY do you think that one MUST vote in order to disparage the goverment that is put into power? Abstinence from voting on the basis of no body representing your ideals or failing to maintain trust (not the kind of trust where you trust them to be dishonest) IS entirely valid. This would be completely backing your opinion, in this case. Backing one guy simply for the sake of NOT getting the other guy is not responsible voting, in my opinion. These are playground tactics. If you don't find any candidate that suits your interests, this does not remove your ability to be vocal about it.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by karahd
I was waiting for this to be said. WHY do you think that one MUST vote in order to disparage the goverment that is put into power? Abstinence from voting on the basis of no body representing your ideals or failing to maintain trust (not the kind of trust where you trust them to be dishonest) IS entirely valid. This would be completely backing your opinion, in this case. Backing one guy simply for the sake of NOT getting the other guy is not responsible voting, in my opinion. These are playground tactics. If you don't find any candidate that suits your interests, this does not remove your ability to be vocal about it.

---

I agree.

Not voting is a perfectly legitimate way to express one's political opinion, and nobody who chooses this route should be made to feel guilty about it. Nor should they be told they no longer have the right to express their opinion about who wins.

In truth, not voting is the RESPONSIBLE and far more civicly praiseworthly choice if the person in question has not taken the time to become significantly educated on the issues.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Frobozz
You are really far off the mark. When the Constitution first came into existence only white, male, landowners had the right to vote. The founding fathers did not feel that everyone should vote, nor did they wish everyone to vote. Some of our founding fathers really thought that blacks were non-human not capable of higher thought.

While our founding fathers were genious, they certainly didnt argue what you claim they did.

---

Ah, my appologies, but i meant Democracy the world over, not just in America. My fault as i came across as American, not so i am British. See this voting appethy is a problem here to, and no doubt for the same reasons as we have stated previously.
:)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by karahd
I was waiting for this to be said. WHY do you think that one MUST vote in order to disparage the goverment that is put into power? Abstinence from voting on the basis of no body representing your ideals or failing to maintain trust (not the kind of trust where you trust them to be dishonest) IS entirely valid. This would be completely backing your opinion, in this case. Backing one guy simply for the sake of NOT getting the other guy is not responsible voting, in my opinion. These are playground tactics. If you don't find any candidate that suits your interests, this does not remove your ability to be vocal about it.

---

Correction. I did not say disparaging the government. I was talking about the perpetual whinge that it would have been better with the other guys. Slightly but significantly different.

Quote:

---

I've been wanting to post about this for a long time as it is something that really bothers me. The problem is not too few people voting. The problem is too many uninformed and uneducated people voting.

---

I think this last sentence is unafortunately badly paraphrased. I agree, It is not much point that an uninformed person votes, like a lottery. However, uneducated people can be well informed. I know many cases of people who do not have formal education but are interested in politics and even directly involved. People who have fought for their ideas.

About the voting campaigns. I think sometime uninformed people can get informed through these campaigns and decide by themselves, which is positive. Definitely, everybody should participate in a democratic system. The aim is to make understand everybody that independently of their ideas, they should express them in a democratic manner, they should take their responsibility in society.

i think he meant uneducated on the issues

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Liathano
i think he meant uneducated on the issues

---

That is exactly what I meant.

That is why I said "uninformed and uneducated."

There are people with little or no formal education who actually take the time to follow the news and understand what the candidates stand for. They should be voting.

Unfortunately, the 10-15% of the vote who swing back and forth with the wind really have no business voting at all.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Aristotle
Unfortunately, the 10-15% of the vote who swing back and forth with the wind really have no business voting at all.

---

I think the percentage is probably even higher than that. It amazes me how ignorant people are of what the candidates stand for, and what their records are. The unwillingness for people to do more than watch TV news to find out what is going on in the world is the biggest bane of society when it comes to elections.