Should people vote?

[3kixintehead]

Every presidential election year a big issue comes up. People who don't vote. I'm not quite sure why that is but you see ads all over everywhere saying "You should vote, its your voice, its your choice" or some other annoying paradigm. Every time I always think "Please don't if you don't know the issues" The campaign to vote is geared towards young voters who may not be interested in voting BECAUSE they don't know the issues. And when they don't know the issues they make ignorant choices about who is to lead our country. I say do not vote unless you have studied the views of the candidates and more importantly the views you hold. I would certainly not vote if there weren't any candidates running that I thought would make an effective president. What do you all think?

[Amazing Rando]

Indeed, some people seem to want to make voting for voting's sake a virtue. :nsm:

Is ignorant and uninformed voting better than not voting at all?

[Pilgrim]

It's better if they're voting for my side! :grin:

[DukeOfEastaboga]

If people don't want to vote then thats their choice, but if you dont vote dont complain about who won!!!!

[rogue06]

If you can't name your two Senators and the Governor from your state it is probably a safe bet that you're not what we call a member of the "informed electorate."

Too often our choice comes down to voting for the lesser of two evils (which is still voting for evil).

[Jimmy Higgins]

Indeed, some people seem to want to make voting for voting's sake a virtue. :nsm:

Is ignorant and uninformed voting better than not voting at all?I think part of the "You should vote" thing is meant to mean you should vote and do so in an informed manner.

[rogue06]

I think part of the "You should vote" thing is meant to mean you should vote and do so in an informed manner.
I think we can all agree that there are more than a few politicians who prefer uninformed voters. Where we may disagree is which party has the majority of politicians who think that way.

[Jimmy Higgins]

I think we can all agree that there are more than a few politicians who prefer uninformed voters. Where we may disagree is which party has the majority of politicians who think that way.Both parties love their ignorant bases. I don't think there is much basis to decide which party loves them more.

That said, when I say that someone should vote, I mean to vote responsibly... to know what they are voting for.

[Darth Executor]

If people don't want to vote then thats their choice, but if you dont vote dont complain about who won!!!!

Why? What if I hate both candidates and would complain regardless of who won?

[DukeOfEastaboga]

Why? What if I hate both candidates and would complain regardless of who won?

Ever heard of write in vote and i know that would not help elect someone but at least you're donig something instead of sitting at home doing nothing and then complaining everytime anyone wins an election. In my state we have alot of complaining and not much action on either side.

[Jim_Casy]

If people don't want to vote then thats their choice, but if you dont vote dont complain about who won!!!!
Why? What if I hate both candidates and would complain regardless of who won?
Ever heard of write in vote and i know that would not help elect someone but at least you're donig something instead of sitting at home doing nothing and then complaining everytime anyone wins an election. In my state we have alot of complaining and not much action on either side.
Wow. I might have to agree with Darth Executor. I have nothing against people who vote, or people who don't vote, and I don't see why a complaining non-voter should be shamed into silence simply because they didn't see a compelling reasons to vote.

In my state, write-ins have to be of an authorized candidate, otherwise they aren't even counted. In that case, I see little value in going to the polls simply to write in a name that won't be counted. It seems to fetishize the poll, treating it with an irrational misplaced sanctity.

On the other hand, abstention or boycotting an election to avoid legitimizing a bad candidate is doing something, even if it looks like you're just "sitting at home doing nothing". Refusing to vote and then complaining about the lack of representation is entirely consistent, as the lack of representation existed before the election as well as afterward.

Elections are meant to be the mechanism by which the will of the electorate is determined and made manifest; this is how the mandate of state power is legitimized. If your will and interests aren't being represented, it seems dishonest (possibly immoral) to participate in a process that pretends that your will is being represented and cloaks itself in ill-gotten legitimacy.

Personally, I don't view my voting in terms of representation (since my values aren't represented by the candidates I've seen), but rather in terms of tactics - i.e., whose term will most likely result in fertile ground for my values? Sadly, this is a far stretch from thinking and acting in a democratic society, but it's the world as I see it. In some situations, voting may have a low tactical value compared with other actions, and sometimes the difference between two candidates may not be worth going to the polls at all. I know of some who see "tactical decisions" as being too compromised and don't vote at all due to moral and religious reasons - I can respect this. Some refuse even a pinch of incense to Caesar, and I can respect this, too.

To sum in short, there are ton(ne)s of reasons why someone may not vote, but none of them strip them of the right to complain, in my opinion - not voting in a society that holds elections is an act of complaint in itself.

[DukeOfEastaboga]

In my experence the people who are too lazy to vote, not the people who dont vote because they disagree with both candidates, who complain the loudest. My point if you really care you're probably going to vote, even if it's for the lesser of two evils.

[Jim_Casy]

In my experence the people who are too lazy to vote, not the people who dont vote because they disagree with both candidates, who complain the loudest.
Maybe, but I'm pretty wary of falling back on "laziness" as an explanation for anything - it doesn't seem to be a useful explanation. What does "laziness" mean in this context? If someone has no faith that their decision matters, no faith in the efficacy of their vote, then it seems rational to put a low priority on driving to a poll to drop that ineffectual vote into a sealed box. I'm not arguing that people are consciously or cynically blowing off elections, but rather saying that there is a deeply engrained sense of futility surrounding politics and politicians in popular wisdom.

If people's vote dramatically changed their lives for better or worse, people's sense of self-interest would kick in and voter turnout would be higher.

My point if you really care you're probably going to vote, even if it's for the lesser of two evils.
I might disagree. You say "if you really care"... care about what? I care about people, my country, my family and my world, but I've cultivated apathy regarding who occupies what seat in what office. So I care, but I haven't voted for the lesser of two evils since 1992.