ROCK THE VOTE

[Salzorrah]

no this is not a pc related question

What is your stance on the action of "voting"?

Are you a supporter of voting? Do you want to let the people's voice be heard? Or are you the kind of person that opposes voting because the people don't know anything? Does the two-party system in the United States work? Or would you rather have a parliamentary system akin to those seen in Europe?

Discuss!

 

[Auticorn]

It really depends on what it is. If it's something on a forum poll, I'm okay with it. If we are talking politics, then I usually just let my dad do the voting for me. I don't really understand that kind of stuff as much as him. So, that's why I feel like it's best if he does it. I do like my voice to be heard, but it depends on a variety of things. I wouldn't say I oppose to voting, though I do think when voting that a lot of people make stupid choices. They care more about what say, a president is saying than whether or not said president will keep their word for example. I guess you can't really tell, but I don't know... I'm not really into voting and stuff so...

 

[pkmin3033]

I wouldn't say that people don't know ANYTHING, but I would say that they're often grossly misinformed by their chosen candidate's (often false or exaggerated) promises. The problem isn't so much with the people as it is with the system itself. Letting the people have their say is great; the problem is that their say is influenced by the media, and the media just loves to twist every little thing.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but nobody can have a clear, complete opinion because it's wrapped up in honeyed words and pointless bureaucracy. People often vote in ignorance because they don't have any other choice: it's that or don't vote at all, and whilst that's a perfectly acceptable option, people like to have a say in how things are governed, no matter how small that say may be.

I have no idea who I'm going to vote for in the general election this year, because - despite doing extensive reading, watch the debate that aired a few days ago, and having a passable knowledge of what it'd mean for either party to get in power - I'm still not entirely sure exactly WHAT they're planning to do. Lots of promises, vague hints to the future, and enticing words. How much of it would become a reality? Very little, as political parties love to go back on their promises, or are prevented from doing so by various political currents and forced compromises.

As it is now, voting is an ineffective and flawed system, because the choice is rendered pointless by politics. I suppose it's better than not having a say at all, but a little more transparency and honesty in the field would make things better still. Really, it's just the illusion of having a choice, because short of declaring war - and not even that! - the government is going to do whatever the hell it wants anyway, and damn the will of the people.

 

[Salzorrah]

To be honest, I prefer people who know what they are doing pick the ones who are going to replace them, rather let the public decide. I just hate how people are so gullible to fall into the politician's advertisements and propaganda, and they just complain how they aren't doing a good job of it. Like seriously, guys. You put them there, it's your fault.

As long as the ones who are going to choose their successors are informed, truthful, and has a great connection with the masses, I'm pretty chill with it.

 

[Nah]

Haha where's Went, this thread is for him

To be honest, I prefer people who know what they are doing pick the ones who are going to replace them, rather let the public decide. I just hate how people are so gullible to fall into the politician's advertisements and propaganda, and they just complain how they aren't doing a good job of it. Like seriously, guys. You put them there, it's your fault.

As long as the ones who are going to choose their successors are informed, truthful, and has a great connection with the masses, I'm pretty chill with it.

What qualifies as "people who know what they are doing" though? I'm sure that'd be a huge mess to try and sort out who's qualified to vote and and who isn't. It'd make a lot of people upset I'd imagine, and there's no guarantee that things would be much better anyway.

 

[Salzorrah]

What qualifies as "people who know what they are doing" though? I'm sure that'd be a huge mess to try and sort out who's qualified to vote and and who isn't. It'd make a lot of people upset I'd imagine, and there's no guarantee that things would be much better anyway.

I meant professionals, people who actually know the business and can be completely trusted. True, there's no guarantee things will be better, but atleast we are putting faith on people that the professionals put forth, than just let the misinformed public scramble their votes in.

 

[Nah]

I meant professionals, people who actually know the business and can be completely trusted. True, there's no guarantee things will be better, but atleast we are putting faith on people that the professionals put forth, than just let the misinformed public scramble their votes in.

Informed professionals would mainly be other politicians though, right? It wouldn't be a bad idea if we could trust all politicians to be completely honest and only in it for the good of country, but that's often not the case.

But even if it was the case, it wouldn't fly with the public. People would get very upset that one of their fundamental rights might possibly be taken away, and people here feel very strongly about their rights. This one in particular, given the country's history.

I would type more on this but I'm totally drawing a huge blank on how to elaborate on it right now =(

 

[Salzorrah]

Informed professionals would mainly be other politicians though, right? It wouldn't be a bad idea if we could trust all politicians to be completely honest and only in it for the good of country, but that's often not the case.

But even if it was the case, it wouldn't fly with the public. People would get very upset that one of their fundamental rights might possibly be taken away, and people here feel very strongly about their rights. This one in particular, given the country's history.

I would type more on this but I'm totally drawing a huge blank on how to elaborate on it right now =(

That's true, but it's kinda a lose-lose situation, really. If people vote, they are just going to vote the wrong person, since they are misinformed, and they will just complain in the end. But if the professionals only vote, the masses will complain because that's a loss of their rights.

Sometimes I wish politics were just as simple as the staff hierarchy in PC, really. The higher ups debate who should be in command, and bam. New leader.

 

[gimmepie]

I think it is important that people have the right to vote, I'll get onto why that is bolded in a second.

Honestly, voting is the fairest method for deciding a leader. This way it is the country as a whole voting, not just a select minority who are going to want to look after their own agendas before the needs of the many. Voting is one of the few ways your average citizen can influence the place they live and the ability to do that should not be taken away.

What I don't like though (now we are on why it is bolded), is when that right becomes a legal obligation like it is in my country. I feel that voting is something that shouldn't be done if the person doesn't feel informed enough to vote, isn't comfortable being a part of such a big decision etc. So yes, we should all have the right to vote but we should not be forced to do so if we do not feel informed or are ambivalent towards our choices.

 

[Ivysaur]

Haha where's Went, this thread is for him

Sorry for the delay!

I personally believe vote is a very important but should not be the only way for citizens to take part in politics. I'd love to see parties having open discussions with supporters on a regular basis and even bringing up parts from their political manifesto up for debates and referendums. Having the party leader decide the political line all by themself, despite the legitimacy obtained by getting elected leader, is too authoritarian.

Voting should be optional, because there is nothing more dangerous than someone who votes by hearsay because he has to or else he'd be fined. We have enough with people who buy propaganda without asking or people who are so deeply ideologised they don't even consider switching to anybody else even if their leader goes and murders babies on the street. By keeping it voluntary we at least make sure that the people who don't care and would vote without understanding what they are doing are kept away.

But this doesn't mean I encourage that. I believe everybody should at least do as Shenanigans told me the other day: "I never care about politics, but when the election gets near, it becomes my life for a month". When I was in Argentina, everybody talked about politics all the freaking day. Maybe that isn't healthy either, but it ensured that, come the day, everybody had an idea of what was going on and what they should vote for, and I admire that. There is nothing worse than someone who doesn't vote saying "well then if X fucks up, it's not my fault!" Yes, it's your fault for not caring enough to really understand what is going on. Even if not voting because you don't know shit about anything is better than buying the first ad that comes on TV, I still think people should make an effort to care because politics decide everything- including who you are allowed to marry or how much your dinner will cost you.

About political systems, I am 100% sure a proportional, multi-party parliamentary system (see: Israel) is much more representative than a two-party system like in the US, where you end up choosing the lesser of the evils. Currently in Spain we have three flavours of left-wing parties and two of right-wing, meaning you can vote for the party that is closer to your beliefs instead of going for the one who can stop the party you don't agree at all with. It's important the system is proportional though, despite having many parties, a majority system makes it so the British politics will remain a Labour-Conservative battle, and voting for the other parties is essentially wasting your vote, not just because they won't win, but because they will barely get any seats at all ever.

In turn, of course, a majority system like the British or the US helps "stability", because either party A rules or party B does. Of course, when there is a middleground (hung parliament, congress/president on different sides), chaos ensues since nobody knows what "compromise" means, they are just used to majorities imposing their rule with iron fist. Politics shouldn't be imposing a 4-year dictatorship though, so I'd rather go with fragmented parliaments that force politicians to debate and find compromises that represent the majority of the people- not just the biggest minority.

 

[Lotus the Cat]

I think it is important that people have the right to vote, I'll get onto why that is bolded in a second.

Honestly, voting is the fairest method for deciding a leader. This way it is the country as a whole voting, not just a select minority who are going to want to look after their own agendas before the needs of the many. Voting is one of the few ways your average citizen can influence the place they live and the ability to do that should not be taken away.

What I don't like though (now we are on why it is bolded), is when that right becomes a legal obligation like it is in my country. I feel that voting is something that shouldn't be done if the person doesn't feel informed enough to vote, isn't comfortable being a part of such a big decision etc. So yes, we should all have the right to vote but we should not be forced to do so if we do not feel informed or are ambivalent towards our choices.

By making voting in elections obligatory I find people who may otherwise not pay attention or be involved in the political process will be. Simply because voting is mandatory doesn't mean you need to actually vote anyway. Plenty of people cast donkey votes each year.

Voting should be optional, because there is nothing more dangerous than someone who votes by hearsay because he has to or else he'd be fined.

As mentioned above, there's the donkey vote. Also, lack of participation in elections I would think to be more damaging than the uninformed vothers that you may get. Also, surely optional voting would do more to eliminate the swing voters as opposed to the voters who always vote for the same party each election.

 

[Bellsprout]

I feel like I am going to be judged super hard, but the only reason why I haven't registered to vote is so I can avoid jury duty for as long as possible

on the flip side I do think more young people should vote because I think the younger generation is typically more forward thinking. I guess part of me feels like my voice won't even be heard once I do start voting because typically the turn out is middle aged - senior citizens, but I realize that is the completely wrong mentality I should have.

 

[Ivysaur]

I feel like I am going to be judged super hard, but the only reason why I haven't registered to vote is so I can avoid jury duty for as long as possible

on the flip side I do think more young people should vote because I think the younger generation is typically more forward thinking. I guess part of me feels like my voice won't even be heard once I do start voting because typically the turn out is middle aged - senior citizens, but I realize that is the completely wrong mentality I should have.

Of course, if you don't vote, you are the cause of turnout being middle aged - senior citizens. Turn out and the average voter will be a tiny bit younger thanks to your rejuvenation powers.

I also think that having people register to vote is an unnecessary hurdle that discourages people. I know several countries where voting is not mandatory but every single person gets added to the rolls by default as soon as they become 18. It's much easier to get to vote when you get a letter saying "Hello, election day is X, this is where you can vote" instead of ad campaigns asking you to voluntarily go and give out your details, when most Governments have a clear list of how many of their citizens are over 18 and where they live.

Also I find it so utterly insane when I watch on the news images of 10-hour long queues to vote in the US because there is only polling place in a 50km radius for 100,000 people. In my neighbourhood we are about 19k people and we have 4 polling stations off the top of my head- it's so much easier to vote when you know you'll only have to wait five minutes tops than when you know you might have to waste an entire day standing.

 

[Flushed]

I've always took the stance that my vote doesn't mean anything. This mentality certainly is not a healthy one for society to adapt, but in regards to my personal vote, regardless if I vote or not, it will not sway the millions of other people to vote or decide not to. So maybe I'm selfish, but realistically, I have no interest in politics and don't see any contributions I make amounting to anything.

 

[Entermaid]

The issue is that we are told participation is demonstrated through our action of voting.

We like this due to the tyranny of inconvenience, it's too costly for us as a high laboring nation in the United States to take time from our work, or what little leisure time we have, to be informed on a particular policy area, let alone multiple ones. Economics for instance requires extensive education just to be able to understand but not completely know what discourse should be taken.

The information given to us from representatives, which they get from think tanks and specialized agencies, should be informing us without editorializing the issues. Notice how voting behaviors are largely influenced based on simply heuristics about the personality, background, party membership, or one or two policy stances of that candidate?

It's this party system, ideological divide (especially among race), and lack of time/resources which make voting behaviors not genuinely participatory. Restructuring party/election structures, and essentially, changing how political actor relay information within their best interest so that they also align with the voter's interest, may help move voters to vote more critically and have more information to do so...though there would still be limitations, the extent of limitations might be attenuated a tad.

 

[Euphoric]

Voting should be compulsory. The current percentage of eligible voters who actually do it is laughable. Apparently, only 57.5% of voters actually voted in the 2008 election - which is pretty sad, if you ask me. Also can't really see how people can be elected and then proclaim that "the American people have spoken", when in reality only about a quarter actually did.

Such an obligation would force the populace to become involved and knowledgable politically, which is a good thing. America already gets flak for having a (relatively) dumb constituency. Even our politicans are ignorant - look at David Brat, who vowed to "restore the nation to its Judeo-Christian roots", even though Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli is a thing. Not just him, most Tea Party/Libertarian candidates firmly state the country's laws are based on the Bible, etc.

That said, I also think that there's a glaring issue persuant to elections nowadays - campaign finance. Citizens United needs to be overturned. All parties should get a roughly equal amount of funds for airing ads, etc. Groups such as Super PACs and 527s also need regulation and the end of unlimited contributions. tThe US needs to go the way of other countries by either doing away with the two-party system in favor of a larger amount of political parties, and thus, choices, or establish a one-party state to do away with the partisan bs that happens these days.