Printable View
This is a very interesting intellectual look at the ethics behind voting, whether you should choose to vote or not, etc.
The Ethics of Voting
Quote:
We would never say to everyone, “Who cares if you know anything about surgery or medicine? The important thing is that you make your cut.” Yet for some reason, we do say, “It doesn’t matter if you know much about politics. The important thing is to vote.” In both cases, incompetent decision-making can hurt innocent people.
Succint.Quote:
After all, how we vote has serious consequences. But how I vote does not.
May I caution, though, against Americans overanalyzing the concept of elections. Why? And why specifically Americans? Because the USA is extremely adamant about the concept of democracy. How many other countries have gone to war "for democracy"? Usually it's "for freedom" or "for justice" or something; but the US will fight "for democracy". It comes up in myriad lesser situations too (fictional works in which some small country is beset by problems, and the heroes implement elected government and it solves everything, for instance).
But democracy isn't such a marvelous thing. Look at the internet. Is any part of it democratic? Nope. Does it work? Totally. It's hierarchical, with kings commanding their domains. Threshold RPG itself is this; Aristotle is king, and I am not - and I can't vote Ari out, and nobody would expect to be able to do so.
Am I heretical for even suggesting that democracy isn't the ultimate in political structure? Probably. I don't mind; I live in a monarchy, so with all my faults, I'm allowed to love my Queen (Yes yes, with all their faults they love their Queen - yes yes, with all their faults they love their Queen). A monarchy limited by law is a good arrangement; a hierarchy defined by protocol is even better, but works only when we have open protocols (which is truer of the internet than it ever will be of politics).
Democracy means that our leaders are chosen by the idiots who vote, because they will inevitably outnumber the intelligent voters.
The United states isn't even a democracy. It's a constitutional republic. The constitution is the king, and the elected officials are his servants, protectors and representatives.
Just thought I'd clarify for you Ros. America's forefathers new that democracy doesn't work because the Majority opresses the Minority.
I know. So why does everyone consider "democracy" to be the ultimate answer to everything? You don't have it, and the smart cookies who set the USA up knew that you don't really want it anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tartun
Of course, the US today is a long way from the founding fathers' ideals. But that's a different issue.
I don't agree with some of his points. In fact, personally, I'm a proponent of compulsory voting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_voting
The wiki article lists most of the arguments for compulsory voting:
Compulsory voting ensures a large voter turnout. This means a victorious candidate or party clearly represents a majority of the population, not only politically motivated individuals who would vote without compulsion. This helps ensure that governments do not neglect sections of society that are less active politically. Victorious political leaders of compulsory systems may claim a higher degree of political legitimacy than those of non-compulsory systems with lower voter turnout.
Another important benefit is that compulsory voting prevents interference with access to the vote. In a similar way that the secret ballot is designed to prevent interference with the votes actually cast, compelling voters to the polls for an election mitigates the impact that external factors may have on an individual's capacity to vote such as the weather, transport, or restrictive employers. If everybody must vote, then restrictions on voting are easily identified and steps are taken to remove them. It is a measure to prevent disenfranchisement of the socially disadvantaged. Polls are generally held on a Saturday or Sunday as evidenced in nations such as Australia, to ensure that working people can fulfill their duty to cast their vote. Postal and pre-poll voting is provided to people who cannot vote on polling day, and mobile voting booths may also be taken to old age homes and hospitals to cater for immobilized citizens.
If voters do not want to support any given choice, they may cast spoilt votes or blank votes. According to compulsory voting supporters, this is preferred to not voting at all because it ensures there is no possibility that the person has been intimidated or prevented from voting should they wish. In certain jurisdictions, voters also have the option to vote none of the above if they do not support any of the candidates to indicate clear dissatisfaction with the candidate list rather than simple apathy at the whole process.
Compulsory voting may encourage voters to research the candidates' political positions more thoroughly. Since they are voting anyway they may take more of an interest into the nature of the politicians they may vote for, rather than simply opting out. This means candidates need to appeal to a more general audience, rather than a small section of the community.
A result of this setup is that it is therefore more difficult for extremist or special interest groups to vote themselves into power. Under a non-compulsory voting system, if fewer people vote then it is easier for smaller sectional interests and lobby groups to motivate a small section of the people to the polls and thereby control the outcome of the political process. The outcome of a election where voting is compulsory reflects more of the will of the people (Who do I want to lead the country?) rather than reflecting who was more able to convince people to take time out of their day to cast a vote (Do I even want to vote today?).
I think that the idea of democratic elections is a good thing. Should we spread it to every nation? No. Should we even try to spread it to nations that are oppressed by horrible dictatorships? I don't think so. I think that, if we want to spread our model of government we should work on making ourselves so awesome that other nations emulate us. That revolutionary leaders gain support and popularity by claiming "Rise up with me! And we'll have a system like the Americans!"Quote:
Originally Posted by Rosuav
In the US, my prayer is that the constitution has the power to protect us from ignorant democracy. Unfortunately, every day, the people who have sworn to uphold the constitution are actively trying to break it down. People on the right and the left. We'll see how that goes.
Yep. The U.S. is a republic. The nature of a republic is such that it has inherent democratic properties. The thing is that politicians know that the word "democracy" appeals to the average person because the average person simply knows that in such a government, the people have the power.
Politicians count on the masses being ignorant so that when they say "democracy", the people will believe that their will is actually what is being worked for. The every day person is given some hope that they actually have some power. Calling the U.S. a democracy is nothing but spin. It's a PR/marketing ploy, and nearly everyone falls for it.
The sad part is that it is true that the average person does have power, but not the knowledge to wield it properly. They're manipulated by people who set themselves up as pseudo leaders and simply take advantage of ignorance.
The problems with the U.S. are threefold: the people lack the ability to recognize true leaders (and seem to have a knack for picking the false ones in any case), and the people do not make educated voting decisions (which was the point of the article), and the fact that you can make money as a politician (both legally and illegally).
My goodness. Even more idiots voting?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xywalan
All the People of Wal-Mart voting?
Terrifying.
Wow. This grossly underestimates the average level of apathy and laziness throughout society.Quote:
Compulsory voting may encourage voters to research the candidates' political positions more thoroughly. Since they are voting anyway they may take more of an interest into the nature of the politicians they may vote for
Actually, it would be more.Quote:
A result of this setup is that it is therefore more difficult for extremist or special interest groups to vote themselves into power.
40-50% of the population doesn't want to vote. They'll be pissed if forced. That's 40-50% of the population even more open to being outright bought. They're already mad they got forced to vote - they may as well make a little money off it.
Sorry Ari but arguing that "compulsory voting will make the stupid vote stupid" or "compulsory voting will make special interests buy the stupid votes" is a shallow analysis. I did a bit more in-depth searching and while it seems that there is not that much done on the effects of compulsory voting (CV), CV has some clearly proven advantages while many of the problems associated with CV can be fixed. Take a look at this: http://jackman.stanford.edu/papers/cv.pdf
CV has a direct impact on voter turnout, evident in both aggregate and individual-
level analyses. The underlying logic is extremely simple. CV’s non-compliance
penalties offset the costs of electoral participation, effectively attaching a cost to
not turning out and thereby overcoming the fact that turnout is a low benefit
activity for many citizens (Lijphart 1997, 9). A number of indirect consequences
of CV are also discussed.
For instance, a recent collection
of data on voter turnout in 171 countries finds turnout about six or seven
percentage points higher in 24 countries with some form of CV than in countries
without CV (IDEA 1997, 32). Multivariate statistical analyses typically find CV to
have larger impacts on turnout, controlling for other institutional and political
variables that affect turnout.
And on the consequences:
To gauge the political consequences of CV, we start with the near universal
association between political participation and socio-economic status. Noting
that ‘‘low voter turnout means unequal and socioeconomically biased turnout’’
(Lijphart 1997, 2), many scholars see CV as going a long way towards removing
this ‘‘bias’’. Comparative studies of turnout note that the relationship between
socioeconomic status and voter turnout weakens as turnout increases (e.g.,
Powell 1986). Thus, to the extent CV increases turnout, CV also removes so-
cioeconomic differences in electoral participation. Quite simply, when everyone
votes, there can be no socioeconomic ‘‘biases’’ in turnout.
CV has some negative consequences and most of the other benefits of CV are so far untested yet.
One criticism of CV is that it compels the participation of disinterested and
hence poorly informed citizens who would otherwise abstain. A higher rate of
invalid ballots (e.g., Tingsten 1937) and ‘‘donkey ballots’’ (where voters simply
select the candidate at the top of the ballot) are some of the few consequences
attributable to the mobilization of citizens with low levels of political interest
or sophistication. Moreover, some instances of these phenomena are protests
against CV itself. Lijphart’s (1997, 10) takes a contrary position, suggesting that
CV ‘‘may serve as an incentive [for voters] to become better informed.’’ A cross-
national study by Gordon and Segura (1997) finds a small though statistically
significant increase in political sophistication in countries with CV, but otherwise,
the evidence for CV promoting greater civic awareness is scant.
Those two problems though depend a lot on how CV and the voting system is
implemented though. By simplifying the voting process (http://politicsir.cass.anu.edu.au/st...Compulsory.pdf), and including "none of the above"
option such negative consequences can be greatly reduced.
Its actually just common sense obviousness based on what already happens.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xywalan
It is a lot easier to buy someone's vote if they don't give a crap, than to buy their vote if they actually care.
In the last US Presidential Election, 81 million eligible voters chose not to vote. That's 81 million people who for the most part don't care enough to vote, and would be far easier to buy off or influence with cheap tricks.
That assumes high voter turnout is actually a virtue. It isn't. The sad fact is, a huge portion of the population - possibly the majority - is not qualified to make a decision of this importance. They CHOOSE not to learn anything about the candidates or the issues, so they would be voting blindly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xywalan
Again, this assumes high voter turnout is a good thing. Where's the evidence that uneducated, clueless people who know NOTHING about the issues or candidates casting a vote is a good thing?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xywalan
Do stupid or clueless people have some kind of ignorant magic that empowers them to make smart choices? I'm guessing they don't.
If we let kids have a vote on the "ice cream vs. broccolli" issue, that would certainly increase participation in family decisions. But would it really be best for the kids?
This defense of CV fails because it assumes something not in evidence: that higher voter turnout is actually good. It defies logic to argue that more clueless, unqualified, ignorant people voting is likely to result in the best result.
Forcing more clueless, apathetic people to vote just drowns out the voice of people who actually take the time to learn the issues, learn the candidates, and can actually make an educated vote. Why should someone who thoughtfully considered the issues and the candidates have their vote effectively nullified by 10 random idiots who vote the opposite way because they think "Boehner" sounds funny. There's absolutely nothing good about that. Its a disaster.