Why exactly should everyone vote?

[Mixolydian]

Being Canadian, I've gotten a double-dose of election lately. Not only did we have our own federal election last month, but we get all the US election news as well. As if this wasn't bad enough, in my province, civic elections are in 2 weeks, and provincial elections will be next May (here, civic, provincial, and federal elections are all held separately). One thing which always seems to be stressed around election time is that everyone should go vote. Quite frankly, I'm sick of hearing this. Am I the only person who sees the flaw in this logic? Allow me to explain...

First of all, yes, I understand the argument that everyone should vote. True democracy requires as much voter participation as possible, and based on this belief alone, voter turnout is appalling. However, like any political belief, democracy in its purest form is not a good idea. True democracy is based on the assumption that everyone is equally qualified to decide the future of our country (keep in mind that a true democracy would require children being able to vote). This means that someone with a PhD in political science has equal say to someone who simply picks the candidate with the nicest hair.

People who understand the issues at hand and what each candidate stands for are going to vote anyway. Thus, when we encourage everyone to vote, the people we are actually influencing are the ones who don't understand the issues at hand. We are telling them to take a shot in the dark and determine our next leader.

Another common situation is someone asking their buddy who to vote for. This is even worse, because when this happens, the gregarious are given more voting power than your typical INTP, when quite frankly it should be the other way around.

Now, don't get me wrong - I still think it is everyone's democratic duty to vote. The catch is, their duty is two-fold. In the same way that knowing who to vote for but not doing it is ludicrous, voting when one knows nothing about the candidates is equally ludicrous. The two halves are co-dependent. If someone ignores their duty to know what their candidate stands for, then they shouldn't vote. Yet somehow, it's perfectly acceptable (encouraged, even) to pick a candidate based on their hairdo.

Allow me to rephrase my argument: I'm not saying people shouldn't vote. I'm saying people should do some research, then vote. The typical argument goes, "If you don't vote, don't complain." This logic makes little sense. If someone votes for a party they know nothing about, that party wins, that party does exactly what they said they would do in their campaign, and the aforementioned voter disagrees with it, then somehow this logic gives that person the right to complain about it. I say, "If you don't understand politics, don't complain." Somehow, it's common for people who know nothing about politics to complain about it. That's equivalent to a high school dropout trying to discredit the latest theory in quantum mechanics.

Your thoughts?

[avolkiteshvara]

Damn commie,


If you don't love the red, white, and blue or the red, white, and maple leaf......you can just geeeeeet out.

[MadamI'madaM]

why exactly is the most venerated popular election in a democracy for a figurehead, and a 50/50 prize fight at that?

serious Big Lie business

[foodeater]

People actually live in Canada? And they vote on things? They even watch us vote on things? I feel so violated.

[airjaw]

Well, its assumed that people will take the time to educate themselves before they vote. Thats what the ideal situation would be and that is what is encouraged when people say, "you should vote!".
They're really saying, "you should take the time to be an informed citizen by reading the news, researching the candidates and their policies, and casting your vote for whomever you think will be best for the nation: economically, socially, religiously, politically, militarily, etc."

But of course that is too wordy and its just easier to say, "Go vote!"

[Architectonic]

This is why voting should be based on outcomes, rather than means. With means decided by a more sophisticated information processing mechanism such as a policy market.

Its worse when you get fined for not showing up to vote.

[walfin]

This means that someone with a PhD in political science has equal say to someone who simply picks the candidate with the nicest hair.

That's the whole point of democracy. Everyone is equal.

Suggesting otherwise would only lead down a slippery slope to a path where some are "more equal" than others. If some should have the right to vote and others shouldn't, where do you draw the line? Any line you draw will be arbitrary. A long time ago, it was landowning. That discriminated against a lot of people. Then there were poll taxes in the US. That discriminated against the people who couldn't even afford to pay it. The marginalised, the "stupid" (by some people's standards) and the poor are the very people who should be protected by democracy.

Who is anyone to suggest that any other human is less qualified than he/she is? And if someone wants to vote on the basis of hair colour, then that's his/her right (skin colour, though, is a different matter; hair can always be dyed). The whole point is that you may disagree with his/her voting preference, but you should still defend his/her right to vote based on hair colour, since you are both equally human and equally sentient.


That's equivalent to a high school dropout trying to discredit the latest theory in quantum mechanics.
In fact, the right to do this is enshrined in the US 1st amendment. And there's a good reason too: who's to say that there isn't a chance that said dropout might be right?

[Robotron]

Nobody votes apart from the electoral college, so I'm already exempt from having to worry about it.

[garak]

http://www.qwantz.com/comics/comic2-1366.png

[NoahFence]

The system is designed so smart-ass nerds can't easily rise to power over honest, hardworking dumbasses. If the dumbasses maintain control, nerds will suffer only occasional beatings and wedgies. But if the nerds took over? It would be armageddon for the dumbasses. They'd be wiped out, extinct inside a year.

[ApeTheDog]

Predictably... the media has fucked things up. A system where nobody has to vote and only those who know what they're voting for and have an understanding of the issues each party stands for is better than one in which a large majority of people who have no idea of what their vote will accomplish in the future vote and obscure the results.

A system in which only those who have been brainwashed sufficiently to feel passionate about voting (we cannot let that muslim run our country! we cannot have evil warmongers run our country!) vote is even worse because it only renders those tactics more valid and serves to bemuddify and obscure the very information that voters rely on to elect somebody, if not now then in the future.

I think the media *needs* an overhaul. They are far too powerful and influential and controlled by far too few, dishonourable people. It just can't continue down this path. New channels need to be found or tapped into and I believe the internet is a good resource for doing that. A reorganization of where people can get actual proper information is dreadfully in order. And quite foreseeably unavoidable as well.

You can fool some people sometime, but you can't fool all the people all the time.

[garak]

Blaming the media is like blaming a fever for being sick. The whole machine is interconnected and the state of it reflects the overall health of our culture... or lack of it. America had it good for a while and that made us complacent. And now we are suffering the inevitable consequences.

[ApeTheDog]

Unfortunately that looks to be a problem which will also be solved, and even in a shorter term than a reinstating of journalistic integrity in the media. You won't be having it good for the next years and it does seem to be having an effect. Perhaps socialism won't actually be a taboo anymore in the US 10 years from now.

[Ratatosk]

I don't think everyone should vote. For example, if you're an idiot, I'd probably be happier if you didn't.

[kuranes]

This is why voting should be based on outcomes, rather than means. With means decided by a more sophisticated information processing mechanism such as a policy market.

That's a cool idea. Tell us more about it.

[NoahFence]

Like that quiz where it says I'm a Liberal Conservative, whatever that is? You answer questions on policies and it associates you with the closest party?

Hmm...that sounds like a SciFi novel waiting to happen...a website that tells you what candidate to vote for based on your own wants/needs...it's so accurate, everyone comes to trust it implicity....THEN IT GETS HIJACKED, BWAHAHAHA!

[kuranes]

I think he's talking about the implementation of the preferences versus getting people into office. Kinda like saying "OK, we've decided on every US citizen getting health insurance at no cost, and with a " 'wait time' to see the doctor of X hours after request etc." Now...corporations ( or whoever ) can bid against each other on how to make that happen most effectively. There would have to be some way to hold their feet to the fire and not ( as per usual ) come in way over bid, etc.

[Mixolydian]

That's the whole point of democracy. Everyone is equal.

Suggesting otherwise would only lead down a slippery slope to a path where some are "more equal" than others. If some should have the right to vote and others shouldn't, where do you draw the line? Any line you draw will be arbitrary. A long time ago, it was landowning. That discriminated against a lot of people. Then there were poll taxes in the US. That discriminated against the people who couldn't even afford to pay it. The marginalised, the "stupid" (by some people's standards) and the poor are the very people who should be protected by democracy.

Who is anyone to suggest that any other human is less qualified than he/she is? And if someone wants to vote on the basis of hair colour, then that's his/her right (skin colour, though, is a different matter; hair can always be dyed). The whole point is that you may disagree with his/her voting preference, but you should still defend his/her right to vote based on hair colour, since you are both equally human and equally sentient.

I'm not saying we should deny some people the right to vote, nor am I saying that we should make some people's votes worth more than others. In theory, I think those are good ideas, but they wouldn't work for exactly the reasons you mentioned. What I'm trying to say is, just because everyone has the right to vote doesn't mean we shouldn't encourage people to use it. Having the right to do something is not the same thing as having the duty to do it. Those who are going to make an informed decision would go vote anyways, and thus when we encourage people to vote, all we are doing is encouraging the uninformed. We get a better signal-to-noise ratio that way.


In fact, the right to do this is enshrined in the US 1st amendment. And there's a good reason too: who's to say that there isn't a chance that said dropout might be right?

So are you saying we should encourage highschool dropouts to come up with theories in quantum mechanics, in case they might be right? It sure seems that's what we do with our elections.