NationStates Jolt Archive

I am interested in finding out why people don't vote. I have my ideas, but the best way to answer the question is simply to ask people.

For example, if you are of voting age and you don't vote, why?
Or if you do vote hopefully you know of at least one person who doesn't and you know why.
I am not asking whether or not *you* vote, but just what are reasons for *not* voting.

Certainly, you have a right 'not to vote', but I would argue that you should.

Peace.

Hopefully, there are a lot of you who do vote, and like me, feel that it is important. Assuming this is true, maybe it is time for a UN resolution along these lines.

you realise the point of the U.n in real life is to prevent interferance in countries domestic policies

yes I do

I guess the main problem is "voter apathy," meaning people are too lazy to get off their couches and go to a polling station. The UK government has been trying to rectify that with postal voting, but that has landed them in a whole other heap of trouble.

Also, a lot of people feel that voting is totally futile ("What is my ONE vote going to change when there are millions of others voting as well and the politicians don't represent the views that I stand for anyway?").

Any thoughts??

Nauarchonesia,

I agree that the two reason which you gave are the two main reasons.
One other I have heard is that by not voting you are 'voting with your feet'.
In other words you are sending sort of a 'none of the above' message.
This is a problem because it doesn't really send that message.
Therefore, it might be better to have 'none of the above' as an option on
the ballot. I think that that would send a louder message than simply not voting. But in order for it to be a message which was heard, a lot of people would have to vote that way. In other words if 'none of the above' came in second or at least a close third, the message would be heard, that voters are not satifisfied with the status quo.

There was a time when I voted, but these days I do not. Here are my reasons.

I live in what is called a 'Democratic Pocket' state. IE, the state is considered a 'gimme' for the Democratic candidate anyway.

The last election showed me that the President can be selected. I'm not arguing about hanging chads or any of that other rubbish. The fact is, our current president was picked, and didn't go through the normal election process.

I don't believe in voting for the lesser of two evils, or voting 'anyone but him'. These are the wrong reasons for voting for a president. It's like choosing between Hitler or Mussolini. I won't have a part in it. If I can't believe in, or feel strongly about, a candidate, I won't waste my time.

The process is very invasive of my privacy, and quite time consuming. After registering to vote, all of a sudden the IRS was on my neck, and telemarketers were calling at all hours of the day and night. I used to work for a phone-survey company, and I know the way we got the numbers to call was to go through the listings of registered voters.

These are my reasons.

Have you considered the 'no call list'?

I have done that. It doesn't seem to work. I still get telemarketer calls waking up my child. Only now there's an assortment of them as opposed to one or two market research firms calling all the time. It's almost like those 'no soliciting' signs. It makes them slather and drool over you.

That's interesting... We used to get a lot of telemarketers too, but since the Do Not Call registry we haven't had a problem with them at all.

Well, I feel the same way, I hate getting calls from salespeople. The only thing is that I have caller id and voice mail and rarely answer the phone unless I know who it is. (Sometimes I answer 'out of area' calls if I think that it is someone that I know, but generally I don't). The thing that makes me mad is that I see the same number come up over and over and over on my caller id. It annoys me because they don't seem to get the message that I am not going to answer their call.

Any suggestions on how to get more people to vote?

We talked about this in government class the other day. Statistics show that the majority of those registered to vote (somewhere between 80 and 90%) DO vote, but only like 50% of those elligible are registered to vote. If you want to increase voter turnout, you have to get more people registered. The problem may still persist (statistics from other countries indicate that it would probably not, though), but you can't get too many more people voting without getting many more people registered.

I don't believe in voting for the lesser of two evils, or voting 'anyone but him'. These are the wrong reasons for voting for a president. It's like choosing between Hitler or Mussolini. I won't have a part in it. If I can't believe in, or feel strongly about, a candidate, I won't waste my time.

These are my reasons.
I think, for what it's worth, that Sakkra here is on to something significant. I think there's not as much apathy in the States (where I'm at) as much as there is a kind of disappointed idealism. The folks I know who don't vote are often as outraged and opinionated as anybody, but tend to complain a lot about not being offered a real choice, or real power, or a real candidate, and about the inherent corruption of the system. Personally, I think that's a misguided attitude--struggling by with the lesser of two evils is what democracy is all about. Trying to make utopia is what totalitarianism is all about. Besides, there actually is a big difference between Hitler and Mussolini, even when that's the only choice.
Still, I have to concede that I don't really know what a solution might be, other than to stress, over and over, that human diversity creates human conflict, and that the purpose of liberal democracy is to resolve those conflicts nonviolently, with maximal liberty for all and full satisfaction for none. After all, ultimately, the only way to really avoid compromising with someone who's not going to agree with you is to bulldoze them into a ditch (or vice versa). And although that's tempting at times, I still prefer voting.

Okay not to be a jerk here guys but that do not call registry is crap. A lot of the out bound call centres were out sourced to other countries and not bound by US legislation. As for the same number calling back several times it is a computer that’s dialing you and a monkey with a script talking to you.

Don’t mean to be derogatory but I used to be said monkey, and I live in Canada so my point is twice proved.

Another thing you have to realize is that 90% of the people you tell your going to sue don’t give a rat’s ass. In fact a lot of them hope you’ll sue the god forsaken soulless giant they work for but know that you are too lazy to do anything about it in the long run. Even if you did they’re A) Protected by an international boundary B) Protected by corporate liability C) Know that a lot of the time you have no case.

Also yelling at someone to ‘Take me off the list” is just going to piss them off and I know I shouldn’t’ve but I in the past have scheduled the people who were jerks for a call back in 10 mins. The computer doesn’t care and it’s the only sort of satisfaction you get when all you hear all day is people yelling at you.

To effectively combat telemarketers:
A) Check if you’re in a no rebuttal state. (I THINK Tennessee is one) This means that the telemarketer is not allowed to continue the conversation once you say no. This will not work a lot of the time as I was personally instructed to rebut unless I was informed by the customer about the state law.
B) Get yourself on the no call list. This however is not fool proof because it allows people you already do business with and charities to call you, as well as the afore mentioned foreigners (like me!)
C) Most importantly when I telemarketer calls keep your calm. They will dump you back in the system if you piss them off. They work a shitty job and don’t care.
D) Now the step that would effectively eliminate ALL out bound calling if all Americans did it. Ask for the employee’s name, ask if it is an alias. Ask for what company they represent AND what company they work for. Then ask for an employee number. Now as soon as you hang up with them, after being wholly polite, call that lovely 1-800 number you have and report them. This step might get you a cash settlement because should they be found to be violating a law (which they usually are) you can take the records of that agency and sue the company. You can get almost $100,000 for a case. But an even better idea is to co-ordinate this effort with your friends and initiate a class action lawsuit because that gets attention. A $100,000 payout can go unnoticed but a class action for a couple million will get you media attention.

Now as for the voting apathy, nick named the democratic deficit. Force people to vote and fine them for failure to comply. However I really do like that none of the above option, it’s wicked. I think a big problem with a lot of today’s democracies is a lack of proper representation. In the Canadian system we currently elect via a first past the post system that marginalizes a lot of voters. (Like Sakkra stated with his pocket state.) For you Americans it’d be as simple as doing away with the Electoral College and electing the President directly. For us here in Canada its not so simple but there’s a plan that might be coming into effect that I really like.

(The following will make no sense to those unfamiliar with a British Style Parliamentary system, albeit I cite Canadian example)

With each province getting so many MPs the House of Commons has many bickering politicians trying to improve their constituency. The problem with this is Upper Canada has such a high population density that so many federal ridings are so compact, leaving those MPs with similar agendas, screwing over the east and under representing the west. The plan would see the number of Federal ridings halved without decreasing the number of MPs.

How would you pick the other MPs?

Well each Canadian would cast two votes, one for their local MP and one for their party. The parties would have pre-prepared lists, like a batting order, and would proceed to fill the spots in the House of Commons by the number of votes they got. (There are currently 308 seats so 154 would be elected by list.) If the liberal party took 54% of the popular vote they’d get 83 positions to be filled via the list. The parties would then operate as per the norm with only the way certain MPs got elected being changed.

I'm not from the USA but I think the main problem there (as seen in Sakkra's post) is the indirect voting system.

If voting for the presidential candidate was a direct vote... then I think more people would vote. Just in case someone doesn't know what on earth I'm saying: it would mean that your 1 vote add with other votes from all over the country and the candidate with most votes wins. Now, that would be logic, wouldn't it?

But when you have witnessed an election where the candidate in the 2nd position (counting individual votes) wins... then I think you would just like to stay at home and curse at the TV, wouldn't you? (a.k.a. "Democracy my ass"). :p

A duel to the death with swords. Or maybe boards with nails in them...

I've always thought that the electoral college was an outdated load of shit, but I had a teacher in High School who was 100% for it. She had some good arguments but it was highschool and she was a narrowminded bigot whore, so I tried to forget everything about her that I could.

I live in Texas, a state that Bush could only lose if he declared he worshipped Satan, stripped naked except for a turban and some StormTrooper boots, and sang songs in Arabic while burning a crack-pipe, and even then he might pull it off... Even so, I plan to vote for Kerry. Alot of my friends who feel the same way and who are registered to vote aren't going to, because Bush is going to win anyway, right? Probably, but how will we ever know unless all of those armchair-politicians and average-Joe complainers get off of their asses and vote? I have an opinion about everything, expecially who is representing me in front of the world. I also have a voice, which I will use to bitch about whatever I feel like. My lonely little vote is simply me bitching. My voice may be drowned out by the unwashed asshole masses, but I'll be screaming, regardless. Why isn't everyone else?

Mandatory voting sounds nice, but would never, ever work. I like the idea of vote-by-mail as well, but again, America is alot larger than Britain, and with the problems they are already experiencing added to greater distance and population, it would be a nightmare.

Eliminate the Senate, it's undemocratic to give people in smaller states more voting power. Replace it with a Senate allocated by Proportional Representation. If party/candidate X gets Y% of the vote, they get Y% of the voting power. Eliminate the Electoral College. And finally, switch to Borda Count voting. Maybe then the system will be democratic enough for disgruntled voters to get up and vote. Personally, I would vote for David Cobb this year, but I'm not old enough to vote.

Why do we need electronic voting/postal voting etc just go to your polling station how hard is that?

Well, I see some good discussion here.

I don't vote because I'm an anarchist. I don't see the point of voting. All it does is make it seem I approve of the system and that simply isn't the case.

I guess the main problem is "voter apathy," meaning people are too lazy to get off their couches and go to a polling station. The UK government has been trying to rectify that with postal voting, but that has landed them in a whole other heap of trouble.

Also, a lot of people feel that voting is totally futile ("What is my ONE vote going to change when there are millions of others voting as well and the politicians don't represent the views that I stand for anyway?").

Any thoughts??
It became painfully clear that huge corporations had more of a vote than a citizen back in the 80's. The huge recession, black monday etc...
caused many voters in the US to become apathetic. It wasn't so much being lazy. It's more like whoever is in office panders to corporate interests and there is really only one party with two heads.
In today's world a corporation has more value than a human being who votes.

Ah, another Free Mind. Welcome to the desert of the real bitches!

I agree with some of the people here... we need to get rid of the electoral college. I think it should be each individual vote should be just that. I feel that my vote only counts as long as it is with the majority of the state. Go by individual votes and maybe some of these issues would go away who knows. I just wish there would be a cap on campaign spending, smaller campaign times.. each candidate should have to visit every state not just the ones with the highest electoral points. Have they been to Alaska??

Nauarchonesia,

I agree that the two reason which you gave are the two main reasons.
One other I have heard is that by not voting you are 'voting with your feet'.
In other words you are sending sort of a 'none of the above' message.
This is a problem because it doesn't really send that message.
Therefore, it might be better to have 'none of the above' as an option on
the ballot. I think that that would send a louder message than simply not voting. But in order for it to be a message which was heard, a lot of people would have to vote that way. In other words if 'none of the above' came in second or at least a close third, the message would be heard, that voters are not satifisfied with the status quo.

Yes I want an “all these choices suck” OPTION (I will vote but I still would love that option)

To undecided voters: www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/voter.php

I do not vote because I do not like my choices.

And finally, switch to Borda Count voting. Maybe then the system will be democratic enough for disgruntled voters to get up and vote. Personally, I would vote for David Cobb this year, but I'm not old enough to vote.

I disagree with Borda Count - it still encourages the two-party system (of the two most popular parties, people will still put the better one right at the top of their ranking). I agree with the people here (http://www.electionmethods.org/evaluation.htm), who support the Condorcet method instead. Having read how it works, it sounds like pure genius :)

I would vote for David Cobb too (in spite of his support for IRV), but I'm from the wrong country :p

why people don't vote:
Voter fatigue (we vote more often then almost everyone else...)
Uneducated (blame the media for this one, but then again, do you really want a bunch of these people voting for your elected officials?)
mistrust of politicians- I still believe the main reason Arnold won California was people didn't see him as a politician.
the electoral college- if you are a conservative in California you just don't vote, simple as that.. it's pointless.

I do not vote because I do not like my choices.
You should still be able to pick a lesser of two evils, i know it's a terrible strategy and a mockery of democracy but you can always form an opinion on which candidate won't completely screw up the country. You don't have to love the person you vote for, just tolerate them more then their opponent.

People don't vote because their registrations are stolen, destroyed or purged by Republicans.

Or they were falsely labelled as felons, and the record was not corrected until after the election (only to bealtered again before the next elections).

Or they were wrongfully detained on drummed up traffic charges or public nuisance charges or anything else handy on election day, as the police in southern Florida did in 2000.

I am interested in finding out why people don't vote. I have my ideas, but the best way to answer the question is simply to ask people.

For example, if you are of voting age and you don't vote, why?
Or if you do vote hopefully you know of at least one person who doesn't and you know why.
I am not asking whether or not *you* vote, but just what are reasons for *not* voting.

Certainly, you have a right 'not to vote', but I would argue that you should.

Peace.

A)Republican Presidential candidates always suck
B)Democratic Presidential candidates always suck
C)Third party candidates never win

I disagree with Borda Count - it still encourages the two-party system (of the two most popular parties, people will still put the better one right at the top of their ranking). I agree with the people here (http://www.electionmethods.org/evaluation.htm), who support the Condorcet method instead. Having read how it works, it sounds like pure genius :)

I would vote for David Cobb too (in spite of his support for IRV), but I'm from the wrong country :p

But what do you do when there's no clear winner of all the pairings in a Condorcet system? In Borda if people put one of the two major parties at #1 it's because they sincerely believe in that party, or because they don't know about anything better to put there. In Borda, a third party voter can put for example: #1 Green #2 Democrat #3 Republican and be sure that they're not helping the Republican at all, that they're casting a vote for the Green Party, and that their vote won't spoil in favor of the Republican because they have the Democrat at #2. I can see why you like Condorcet, it has very little incentive for tactical voting, but the fact is that when there's no clear winner it becomes ambiguous and people will always try to vote tacticly, no matter the system. Many people this election will be voting for Bush or Kerry to keep the other one out of the White House, but they don't have an actual preference for any candidate themselves! The fact is that the media doesn't give enough coverage to third parties to let most voters know that they're anything but fringe-group wierdos.

Perhaps, if when there was no clear Condorcet winner the Borda Count winner was chosen instead. I think that makes some sense.

I'd like to say that my vote counts but it doesn't. The next president is already lined up and there isn't shit we can do about it. Same with 2008.

A)Republican Presidential candidates always suck
B)Democratic Presidential candidates always suck
C)Third party candidates never win


Bingo! (with the addition that SOMETIMES the third parties suck to … it is just less apparent because of all the stupid bickering between 1 and 2 lol they draw attention to their “suckyness”)

I guess the main problem is "voter apathy," meaning people are too lazy to get off their couches and go to a polling station. The UK government has been trying to rectify that with postal voting, but that has landed them in a whole other heap of trouble.

Also, a lot of people feel that voting is totally futile ("What is my ONE vote going to change when there are millions of others voting as well and the politicians don't represent the views that I stand for anyway?").

Any thoughts??

A lot of peoples lives arent going to change one way the other no matter is in office, or so they believe.

Here is a post I made a couple days ago, and I think it explains why most college students, or at least the ones I know, don't vote.

Ok, so I belong to the generation that everyone wants to vote. I am a young adult, and everywhere around me, I am being told that my vote matters, and if our generation voted, we could change things. Some rapper is telling me to vote or die. Do any of these people realize how hard it is for a college student who doesn't live at home to vote? Let me tell you what I had to go through.

First, I had to register, but I couldn't register at college, because this is not my permanent residence. So I had to wait to make the 8 hour trip home to register. That was about a year and a half ago. Now that I am registered, it shouldn't be too hard to vote, right?

Wrong. Now I have to get an absentee ballot, but not from here, because I don't live here. I have to write a letter saying why I need a ballot, then my local office will send me a form to say I want an absentee ballot. Then I send that back to the local office, and they will send me a ballot. Then I send the ballot back to them, and if it gets there in time, I get to be counted for the election. If not, screw me, I don't get to vote.

Now, some may say that I should have sent my information in sooner, but why should voting be a three week ordeal? And why should I have to spend fifteen bucks to send three letters, just so I can vote? No wonder our generation has the greatest voter apathy!

Well, at least I don't have to deal with electronic ballots and/or anything in Flordia. That's my rant, thanks for listening.

...Now I have to get an absentee ballot, but not from here, because I don't live here. I have to write a letter saying why I need a ballot, then my local office will send me a form to say I want an absentee ballot...

Can't you vote at home?... after making the 8 hour trip I know... but still.

Can't you vote at home?... after making the 8 hour trip I know... but still.
Voting is on a Tuesday, I can't miss my classes.

Why can't you claim that you live in your college town permanently?

I think when you vote on any issue that could potentially have a controlling factor on any other persons life and that person is harming no one with the conduct they do. You show that you are a immature little baby that wants to fight over control of the sandbox. Think about it. If you would just tolerate that someone else is in that same sandbox not bothering you then why throw sand up in thier face? Maybe because we as adults like to be immature at times? That is one of the reason that I do not vote any longer, including the fact that the one that has all the wisdom of all creation said I should "stay away from politics". I choose to be mature enough to tolerate and understand, accept and love our differences. It really is easier than it sounds. No more bickering about who is doing what or any other bullshit, just playing in the sand box with all the others that know how to share life. If you look at the word selfishness you will see that politics is all about that.