[RD] Do you feel your vote matters?

[Valka D'Ur]

I think this is actually harmful to democratic societies since it doesn't encourage candidates to actually be good, it just encourages them to not be the worst possible option.

Holding your nose while voting is something that Canadians have been doing for decades. In most cases people tend to vote for the party, and the candidate is irrelevant. (please note that most of us who do this are not literally holding our noses; it's an expression that's become part of our collective elections-related vocabulary; it means to choose the best of a list of less-than-great choices)

I try to evaluate the candidates of the parties I am considering. Under no circumstances will I vote for a right-wing party. So that leaves the other three to consider. This last time around, since you could run a dust bunny as a Conservative and it would be elected, the choice of Conservative candidate doesn't really matter - it's a foregone conclusion in my riding that he or she will be elected (actually, I can't remember ever having a female MP for this riding).

I rejected the Greens, since the candidate lived in Calgary and didn't have any information posted online. If you're going to let your name stand in a riding, the least you could do is live there.

So it was between the Liberals and NDP. The Liberal candidate was a pastor - someone more likely to oppose the promised assisted dying legislation. So that was a strike against him, and I'm not in favor of legalizing marijuana for anything other than strictly medical reasons. That was a strike against the party.

The last party standing, and the one I didn't mind anyway, was NDP. One of the campaign workers went to bat for me with Elections Canada when the Returning Officer decided she wasn't going to let me vote, because it would inconvenience her, poor dear.


There was one election when the NDP candidate lost my vote. She actually said at the all-candidates' forum that she was running because she thought it would be a fun thing to do.

Hello - far too many people let their names stand for that exact reason, and it's sometimes a "holy crap, what have I gotten myself into?" moment if they happen to win because the voters are seriously not in favor of the other parties.

 

[Arwon]

Well, I'd say a big difference between the two would be a "good" candidate is one that is in it because they want to be a public servant, whereas a bad candidate is one that is in it for themselves, whether that be for power, wealth, or any other type of personal gain one could get from holding a political office.

Just voting for the shiniest turd encourages the election of the latter and discourages the former. Because if I'm running and I am a corrupt bastard, all I have to do is not be worse than the "other guy" or at least make myself seem not as bad and I get elected. I still might not be the candidate that will do good things or make an effort to make life better, but hey at least I wasn't that "other guy" right?

If we're talking about the US, Canada or the UK, the analysis is a little more than just "who is not the worst" but "who will beat the worst". Don't even have the luxury of voting for who you genuinely think is the least worst available, but rather have to think strategically and probably vote something other than that.

The key mechanical problem with ticking just one box is everyone you don't vote for is treated identically. And it's a mechanical problem, not really a "people get the govt they deserve" problem. There's a massive collective action problem in this particular system preventing people from expressing more diverse choices or therefore from changing that counting system.

 

[Zkribbler]

I'm voting in a special election. There's only two items on my ballot.

One is city council member. I know one of the candidates, and so he's getting my vote. I never heard of the other guy.

There's also a proposal to amend the city charter to allow any police officer facing a disciplinary hearing to opt for an all civilian review board. Thinking the was curious, I dd some research. For 25 years, three member review boards have been required to have one civilian member. At first, the police fought against it, but over the years, the civilians have turned out to be far more pro-cop than the cops themselves. So the police union did some back office maneuvers to get this measure slipped onto the ballot of a very-low-turn-out election.

 

[Smellincoffee]

Haven't believed in the national system since 2007 or so. State-wise, Alabama has an overly centralized constitution that subjects a lot of local issues to Montgomery decision and even constitutional conventions. Every election, Alabamians have to vote for state amendments that only effect one county; there's always some, and sometimes as many as a half-dozen. It's preposterous.

 

[Commodore]

There's also a proposal to amend the city charter to allow any police officer facing a disciplinary hearing to opt for an all civilian review board. Thinking the was curious, I dd some research. For 25 years, three member review boards have been required to have one civilian member. At first, the police fought against it, but over the years, the civilians have turned out to be far more pro-cop than the cops themselves. So the police union did some back office maneuvers to get this measure slipped onto the ballot of a very-low-turn-out election.

That's actually kinda funny considering one of the biggest complaints about police is cops always get away with stuff because they investigate themselves. According to what you say here though, it turns out police investigating themselves is the better option as opposed to bringing in "outsiders".