Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
George Carlin would have argued that you've got that backwards.
Ah, well, that looks me off the hook- I'm not a citizen, I'm just a subject!
Should you vote?
- Thread starter Souron
- Start date
I'm fairly sure the going rate for not voting here is $50 or 'religious objections'. Society seems to say the answer to the OP question is 'yes'.
Whether that counts as legitimating the system is a very interesting question in post-Australia Act Australia. The Constitution derived its legitimacy from being an Act of UK Parliament, yet UK Acts are no longer applicable in Australia. So the only thing that makes it binding is supposedly popular sovereignty. Yet when it was originally voted on, women were only allowed to vote in South Australia, and of the remaining part of the population that could vote, only about 40% did, and a sizeable portion of them voted 'no'. So if the Constitution is to have any sort of continuing legitimacy, the basis of its popular sovereignty must be the present. Half the population aren't even aware that Australia has a constitution, and the rest have never had a chance to vote on it; acquiescence may amount to contractual acceptance, but that can hardly be a strong basis for a social contract. Now, if people are forced to vote in elections legitimising the system, are there any grounds on which it can be said that the Constitution and the system it enacts are popularly and voluntarily accepted? If you're forcing people to legitimise the system, it's not longer a true form of legitimisation. If that's the case, where does such popular legitimacy of the system come from?
Whether that counts as legitimating the system is a very interesting question in post-Australia Act Australia. The Constitution derived its legitimacy from being an Act of UK Parliament, yet UK Acts are no longer applicable in Australia. So the only thing that makes it binding is supposedly popular sovereignty. Yet when it was originally voted on, women were only allowed to vote in South Australia, and of the remaining part of the population that could vote, only about 40% did, and a sizeable portion of them voted 'no'. So if the Constitution is to have any sort of continuing legitimacy, the basis of its popular sovereignty must be the present. Half the population aren't even aware that Australia has a constitution, and the rest have never had a chance to vote on it; acquiescence may amount to contractual acceptance, but that can hardly be a strong basis for a social contract. Now, if people are forced to vote in elections legitimising the system, are there any grounds on which it can be said that the Constitution and the system it enacts are popularly and voluntarily accepted? If you're forcing people to legitimise the system, it's not longer a true form of legitimisation. If that's the case, where does such popular legitimacy of the system come from?
GhostWriter16
Deity
I don't get how voting legitimizes the system at all...
All it says is "I prefer this guy than any of the other choices." "We don't want any government" isn't exactly an option generally...
All it says is "I prefer this guy than any of the other choices." "We don't want any government" isn't exactly an option generally...
To be a citizen entails responsibilities, like participation. I think voting is the most ineffectual way we have of participating, which is why it was scorned by Henry David Thoreau in his "On Civil Disobedience". Even so, corporations spend a lot of money on adverts trying to influence the voting, so it must have some effect.
That's because influencing how other people vote is not so ineffectual.
If only more people here shared that sentiment - CFC would require far fewer moderators!
If you're not confident that your candidate is better, why is that person your candidate?
Of course you don't. As we often say here, "I held my nose and voted," meaning "I voted for the lesser of two/three evils" or "I voted strategically." It depends on what your conscience tells you is right or if there are any candidates you can, in good conscience, choose.
For me the problem is often that I like the federal leader but not the local candidate, or vice versa. I never vote Conservative Reform-Alliance, so my choices are among the Liberals, New Democratic Party, and the Green Party.
When pressed some of people may be able to say they like one candidate or the other, but still be unsure or unable to give good reasons to be confident in that choice. It's still their candidate, in the sense that if they did vote, that's who they'd vote for.If you're not confident that your candidate is better, why is that person your candidate?
GhostWriter16
Deity
Yeah, then I don't object to what you are saying here. For me personally I would always show up at the ballot box even if I wrote in my own name just so nobody could tell me it was because I was lazy...
However, there are some people that are saying "If you don't vote for Romney or Obama you have no right to complain" (Even if you vote for a different candidate) and those are the people that I wish would just shut up.
Someone once told me if I voted Johnson (I'm too young so it was a theoretical) I would lose my right to complain for the next four years. I commented that if I voted for Romney or Obama and that guy won, I'd still be complaining
For me the problem is often that I like the federal leader but not the local candidate, or vice versa. I never vote Conservative Reform-Alliance, so my choices are among the Liberals, New Democratic Party, and the Green Party.
King Kalmah
Magyar Madness
I didn't want Jury Duty so I'll vote next time...besides Romney doesn't need my vote...he's got it in the bag!
Tonight!!!!!
Tonight!!!!!
Winner
Diverse in Unity
I've always said that people who don't vote should be stripped of the right for the next two elections (at the very least) and pay a fine I mean, they should be struck out from the voter registry, so they wouldn't be counted as people who didn't come. Let the (more) responsible determine the country's future.
I vote in every election, even in the pointless ones. I am not going to give imbecile parties the satisfaction of getting my vote indirectly because they have a more indoctrinated voter base.
I vote in every election, even in the pointless ones. I am not going to give imbecile parties the satisfaction of getting my vote indirectly because they have a more indoctrinated voter base.
MagisterCultuum
Great Sage
There is no moral imperative to vote or not to vote. It generally will have a negligible effect.
There is nothing irresponsible about not voting. It is far more irresponsible to vote without adequately researching the candidates first. Making an uninformed decision dilutes the franchise of those who try to vote wisely.
First pass the post plurality voting usually means that no god candidate has a chance to win anyway. IRV is not much better, and in some ways actually worse. We should really move to using Range Voting, or its PR variant. We also ought to provide voters much more information about the candidates to review while in the ballot booth.
There is nothing irresponsible about not voting. It is far more irresponsible to vote without adequately researching the candidates first. Making an uninformed decision dilutes the franchise of those who try to vote wisely.
First pass the post plurality voting usually means that no god candidate has a chance to win anyway. IRV is not much better, and in some ways actually worse. We should really move to using Range Voting, or its PR variant. We also ought to provide voters much more information about the candidates to review while in the ballot booth.
This is the problem when communicating by text. I simply cannot know if you're joking or if you're actually serious. There is no tone of voice indicating serious opinion. However, since this is the serious part of CFC, I'll assume you are serious.
What if both (all) choices are good? What if your vote is not needed (everyone already knows the outcome?) What if you, for some reason, cannot vote? Besides, I doubt forcing uninformed voters to vote will lead to a better result.
Mise
isle of lucy
I think people should want to vote, but I don't think that people who don't want to vote should vote. I think everybody has an interest in the political system and therefore everybody ought to want to vote. I don't see any rational reason to not want to vote in this country.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Since 1989 if we're going by birth, or 2005 if we're going by age of majority.
It's funny how people who go around demanding the tightening of the franchise never seem to demand that it be tightened in such a fashion as to exclude themselves. One might almost be tempted to infer that they are possessed of some sort of bias...
Borachio
Way past lunacy
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2012
- Messages
- 26,698
Nitpicker! Though I, myself, have complained about being a subject before now.
But presumably you'll be a citizen of an Independent Scotland before long.
What if everybody who "knows" the outcome thinks they don't need to bother to vote, and as a result, nobody votes?
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
What if a psychic octopus drops in from outer space and mind-controls the electorate into filling every position with a squirrel? Not every possibility is worth acting upon.
I'll give you an example. In the last Finnish presidential election, it came down to two choices on the second round of the election: 1. Sauli Niinistö, a veteran politician from the most popular party in Finland, and 2. Pekka Haavisto, homosexual and a previously unknown politician from a pretty insignificant party (it was a miracle he made it that far). Everybody knew Niinistö was going to win and, unsurprisingly, he won by a landslide. He got a whopping 62,6% of the vote (compared to Haavisto's 37,4%). Almost twice as many people voted for Niinistö, despite the fact that everyone knew what the outcome was going to be.
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
Every vote should have a default option at the bottom of the list: "None of the above" (Tips hat to Brewster). If that were a reality there would be no reason not to vote.
As of now, there are 2 ways to voice your disagreement with the options given. Don't vote, let the low turnout percentage speak for you. Or write in something not on the list. But since the write-ins will all be different, no one will pay any attention to it. Turnout percentage gets more airtime, so as the situation is, I see a very good reason not to vote. Not out of laziness or because you're not interested, but because you want to send a message and have no other way.
As of now, there are 2 ways to voice your disagreement with the options given. Don't vote, let the low turnout percentage speak for you. Or write in something not on the list. But since the write-ins will all be different, no one will pay any attention to it. Turnout percentage gets more airtime, so as the situation is, I see a very good reason not to vote. Not out of laziness or because you're not interested, but because you want to send a message and have no other way.
