Forums → WEPR → People who don't vote in Presidential elections
| 32 | 14777 |
I've decided to start this thread out of curiosity. What are your opinions regarding those among us who choose not to vote for the Presidential elections? I've seen some people that get livid when they here that people didn't vote. "People have died for your right to do this, This is really important how can you not vote??, etc"
Personally⦠I've come to the conclusion that there's almost no reason for me to vote. My vote basically doesn't matter. What's your view and why?
- 32 Replies
Bongo-bongo land comments, although from a single black sheep, does not help the xenophobic image.
Bloom was thrown out, silly.
I've actually read the Green manifesto. Obviously they have slathered green stuff all over anything that they can (like industry), but their manifesto is in fact a very comprehensive mass of fairly standard left-wing pandering, so I think (given that small parties are usually very sincere) that they'd be my choice if I were old enough to vote.
Bloom was thrown out, silly.
Yes, and he wasn't at that time was he? Silly. Images are more lasting than not.
Everyone will have a ''full'' manifesto. However, more often than not historically, single issue parties will tend to zoom in on the issue that they brand themselves on, once they have a few seats of power. They have to have a ''full'' manifesto, or no major party will want to include them in their coalition.
And he resigned, not that he was thrown out. He retains the party membership, just that he sits as an Independent MEP for the more picky ones.
My input, considering I'll be voting come 2016.
According to [url]http://elections.gmu.edu/Turnout_2012G.html[/url], only 58% of the legible voters voted.
One person voting is very unlikely to make a difference, directly. But the problem is, when you personally don't vote, that may influence your friend, who won't vote either. And chain reaction, all around the country, until 42% of the country decides not to vote. That's a huge number.
Not voting generally means you're unopinionated in the matter. I could be wrong, but from who I've talked to personally, they just don't care.
If those 42% had voted, it's very likely that elections would go differently. Better or worse, I don't know, but they still could have gone differently.
the chain reaction idea is shaky at best. At least around here, most people just don't talk about it. A few people will ask at the end of the day "did you go vote?", but that's about the extent of it. I'm sure it happens, but I've never heard anyone actually go around saying "I'm not voting, and you shouldn't either!" People just don't broadcast it.
I think maybe more people would be inclined to vote if their votes were actually equal to the rest of the voting populace's. It doesn't matter if a state is won by one vote or if it is won by 10,000,000 the most likely outcome is that winner takes all of the electoral college votes. California could go democratic by one vote and Mississippi could go unanimously republican and the democrat would still win. That's not saying the winner wouldn't get bargained out of it, but that's how things would go at least in the beginning. It shouldn't matter which way overall a state goes⦠an American citizen is an American citizen, and our voices should be equal.
(obviously this is oriented towards Presidential elections and not elections in general)
If the elections are direct then the amount of views being represented is far greater than in electoral college type votes- In america there are two parties for everything, and game theory says that non-central third parties cannot exist, because voting for the party you like most supports the people you hate- divide and conquer. In most countries that have direct elections third parties aren't rare and many times there are several main parties, which makes for nicer representation of views- In america believing and supporting capitalism forces you to support racism and the unification of church and state, which the people who support capitalism frequently oppose.
the chain reaction idea is shaky at best. At least around here, most people just don't talk about it. A few people will ask at the end of the day "did you go vote?", but that's about the extent of it. I'm sure it happens, but I've never heard anyone actually go around saying "I'm not voting, and you shouldn't either!" People just don't broadcast it.
I think maybe more people would be inclined to vote if their votes were actually equal to the rest of the voting populace's. It doesn't matter if a state is won by one vote or if it is won by 10,000,000 the most likely outcome is that winner takes all of the electoral college votes. California could go democratic by one vote and Mississippi could go unanimously republican and the democrat would still win. That's not saying the winner wouldn't get bargained out of it, but that's how things would go at least in the beginning. It shouldn't matter which way overall a state goes⦠an American citizen is an American citizen, and our voices should be equal.
(obviously this is oriented towards Presidential elections and not elections in general)
Obviously, the influence rate is smaller in some places, and a simple example. But around here quite a few people talk about who they did and did not vote for, and if they did or did not vote.
Regarding your election example, I have to agree that it does feel futile. But, continuing this hypotheses, California won by 1 Democratic vote. The voting percentage in California is 55% of the eligible population. 45%, that leaves a lot of room for completely changing the vote. Not saying it would, but it would likely show up on the results.
I personally am (technically speaking, at least) a Republican voter in a Democratic state. If anyone feels like a drop in a bucket it would be me. But I still vote because, a drop is still something. And if by chance I somehow get at least part of that 42% to vote, then hey, it makes it a bit more than a drop.
One opinion, one vote, practically useless. But to get other people to give their opinion and vote, well, I'm saying that that could change something. And come on, what does someone lose by taking half an hour to vote for who they believe should run their country?
What really could be lost by everyone (or at least everyone able) voting?
It would show multiple things, not only to US citizens, but also other smaller countries. Seeing only 55% of US citizens vote must say something. It shows that Americans don't care, and that most of them feel like an inconsiderable drop in a bucket. When half the country feels like an inconsiderable drop in a bucket, that's plain sad.
So, if only to be an optimist, I vote.
On most cities, if their mayors are most democrat or republican, that is there presediential vote.
well apart from what I've already said, it's not always as easy as "Just 30 minutes." I'm in medical school and I was in undergrad for the first time I could vote. You can't just vote anywhere. You've got to do an absentee ballot and there's a really aggravating timeline you have got to do it all by.
There are also stories of times when absentee ballots aren't even counted⦠i.e., military ballots "don't get in on time" even tho they do everything on time.
The residents of the district of columbia either get 1 EC vote or none (I've forgotten which and don't really care to look it up). There are apparent reasons behind DC not being able to get equal treatment ⦠something to do with our founders⦠but that seems archaic and discriminating to me. If we're not all treated equally then I really don't care to participate in their system. I'm sure that dead people are also voting in these bigger states. There are dead and fake people whose "opinions" matter more than mine.
I'm sure that if everyone voted, then things might be different. If we are going to maintain the EC, then I'd like to see the EC limited by the number of citizens who voted in their state. If only 50% of Mississippians vote, then 3 out of 6 EC votes is all we should allow. This whole winner takes all thing is ridiculous
The residents of the district of columbia either get 1 EC vote or none (I've forgotten which and don't really care to look it up).
3, equal to the lowest state, so their EC representation is fairly high.
maybe I was wrong ⦠my memory has failed me, b/c I'm focused on other things. I went there this summer and they mentioned something that wasn't "fair"⦠I guess I misfiled that information under something else. There's something about the capitol city not being able to do something somewhere in some document solely b/c it is the capitol city. I'll have to figure it out later I suppose
I WAS WRONG! I'M ADMITTING IT â¦
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_voting_rights
procrastination made a liar out of me⦠I found it instead of starting to study anyway
I went there this summer and they mentioned something that wasn't "fair"
Probably congressional representation. Dey ain't got dat. They have a non-voting delegate in the House.
that's one of the first things mentioned in the link I posted! that's what it was⦠:-P
This makes me livid, but something I consider worse is:
" Hey elections are starting soon!"
"Oh yeah, I almost forgot!"
"Who are you voting for?"
"Hmmmm...(makes decision in 3 seconds) I think Obama (insert any politician here), he has such a great voice, and is so cute!"
"Hey yeah, he sounds like a good guy! He'll probably like give us rights or take away taxes or something!"
"Yay! Let's Go vote! "
That kills me.
You must be logged in to post a reply!