Why some smart people don't vote.

[ApostateAbe]

Political cartoons and memes are not the best way to communicate arguments (you often need more detail if you want to fully justify a position), but the advantage is that you get quick insight into the way a group of people think and feel. Why are there people actively opposed to voting? The perspective has always struck me as a little odd. These images are provided by a man who posted them in the Mensa forum.

This is the not-my-fault argument. This may be a good analogy at least in part, but it wouldn't help the position, from my perspective. Accidents like this one are caused by too many people driving the wrong way. Fuck-ups in politics are caused by too many voters voting the wrong way. The big difference is that you will be part of the fuck-up regardless.

This is the anti-authoritarian element of the attitude. Voting is all about choosing your master, they say. The way I see it, it is not about choosing a master, but about choosing a slave. The elected representatives are slaves to the majority of voters. That is why they generally do the will of the majority of voters. If they don't, then they get tossed out. That is the pattern apparent on the face. The do the will of the voters, for better or for worse. The perspective that they are the masters seems excessively cynical and out of touch with the seeming reality. If you don't vote, then obviously they will care nothing for your will.

This is the libertarian element of the attitude. Only people interested in restricting rights would vote. But, actually libertarianism is a powerful political force, and it can get bigger only with more libertarian voters. Rand Paul has pretty good odds for president in 2016. He would have better odds if more libertarians voted.

The third-party argument. Neither of the two candidates in the two main parties represent your primary interests much, so why vote for them? The fallacy, in my opinion, is that the two main candidates are seldom equal. One of them represents your interest MORE than the other, and it would be in your interest to vote for that candidate. Lesser of two evils, yes, but it is still a choice with one rational option. "I get either the chicken sandwich or the raw liver salad. I don't like either of these two options. Fuck that, I will let other people choose for me."

This is the voting-doesn't-help argument. Voting doesn't work, because we have been voting for hundreds of years and still have not fixed all the problems. This argument is presented at the same time as the legalization of marijuana through popular vote in Oregon and DC. But, not in Florida, because in Florida too many of the wrong people voted and not enough of the right people. "I have been exercising in the gym for years, and I look pretty good, but I still don't look like Mr. Universe, so it would be insane to continue doing the same thing." You really would rather not live in a nation where voting is GENUINELY AND COMPLETELY ineffective, unless you are this guy.

There actually would not be a circle here. The buck stops with the majority of voters, and at most a minority of voters would tend to pass the buck to the majority of voters. If voters demand that war should continue regardless of the consequences, then the war will continue. If voters demand that war should stop regardless of the consequences, then the war will stop. To be fair, the war issue is a little more complicated, because presidents know that ending the war at the behest of popular demand may be short-sighted, as the bad short-term consequences of withdrawal may reverse voter opinion. That complication still assumes the supremacy of voters.

Some people think we have a civic responsibility to vote. I don't think so. We are free to not vote, and that is the way it should be. In fact, there are many people in the USA who I wish would NOT vote. Voting is more of a selfish thing, though the people who agree with you rightly have an interest in you voting. When you pay attention to politics and vote rationally, you add a little more weight to each opinion you hold that is relevant in politics. When you habitually refuse to vote, your opinions are reduced from a little weight to no weight, unless you communicate the issues with people, and that is good. If you don't vote, maybe you can persuade others to pick up your slack and vote the right way.

It is less tolerable, however, if you have mostly-agreeable positions, you don't vote, and you try to persuade others like you to not vote.

 

[Nexus]

The elected representatives are slaves to the majority of voters. That is why they generally do the will of the majority of voters. If they don't, then they get tossed out. That is the pattern apparent on the face.

This is ridiculously false. The actual pattern is quite opposite what you stated here. Congress is at around a 20% approval rating. The ones that get "tossed out" are actually just moving on to corporate positions like lobbyists or consultants. A new cast of characters goes into office to keep the charade up as long as their voters keep on believing. If they don't its no big deal just rinse and repeat with a new candidate and slogan of change.

There was a thread here recently referencing research how our elected representatives don't actually follow the will of the electorate rather corporate interests. If someone remembers it would be helpful to link it here. If they actually followed the will of the people issues like a public mandate would have been in the ACA.

Voting is used to get the public's acquiescence in lieu of overt force. And to give the veneer of legitimacy.

 

[ApostateAbe]

The elected representatives are slaves to the majority of voters. That is why they generally do the will of the majority of voters. If they don't, then they get tossed out. That is the pattern apparent on the face.

This is ridiculously false. The actual pattern is quite opposite what you stated here. Congress is at around a 20% approval rating. The ones that get "tossed out" are actually just moving on to corporate positions like lobbyists or consultants. A new cast of characters goes into office to keep the charade up as long as their voters keep on believing. If they don't its no big deal just rinse and repeat with a new candidate and slogan of change.

There was a thread here recently referencing research how our elected representatives don't actually follow the will of the electorate rather corporate interests. If someone remembers it would be helpful to link it here. If they actually followed the will of the people issues like a public mandate would have been in the ACA.

Voting is used to get the public's acquiescence in lieu of overt force. And to give the veneer of legitimacy.

Thank you for your consideration. Congress AS A WHOLE is at around a 20% approval rating, and that is not so relevant. The relevant point is that each congressperson tends to have the approval of his or her own voting constituents. Their interests are divided between the donors and the voters--I will grant you that. It would be wrong to claim that the corporate donors are all that matter, or else corporations would have no legal restrictions at all. They do, and it matters.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

The problem is that even though each individual vote doesn't matter in and of itself, the larger the group of non-voters is, the larger the problems that the non-voters tend to have with the electoral system are. A disengaged populace increases the power of single-issue voters and a candidate can cater to their issue and then just do whatever the hell else he wants because it won't affect his job security. When that happens, the thing that he wants to do may as well be the thing that pays the best.

When you don't participate, you're doing your part to make the problems worse. It's a tiny and insignificant part, to be sure, but when taken with everybody else's insignificant parts, it can become significant.

 

[arkirk]

The elected representatives are slaves to the majority of voters. That is why they generally do the will of the majority of voters. If they don't, then they get tossed out. That is the pattern apparent on the face.

This is ridiculously false. The actual pattern is quite opposite what you stated here. Congress is at around a 20% approval rating. The ones that get "tossed out" are actually just moving on to corporate positions like lobbyists or consultants. A new cast of characters goes into office to keep the charade up as long as their voters keep on believing. If they don't its no big deal just rinse and repeat with a new candidate and slogan of change.

There was a thread here recently referencing research how our elected representatives don't actually follow the will of the electorate rather corporate interests. If someone remembers it would be helpful to link it here. If they actually followed the will of the people issues like a public mandate would have been in the ACA.

Voting is used to get the public's acquiescence in lieu of overt force. And to give the veneer of legitimacy.

It's a knotty problem. It seemed the OP had the general theme. If I didn't vote, it is not my responsibility. I am not saying the poster necessarily felt that way, but his cartoons did. If you are at the site of a crime and do nothing to stop it or slow it, you do still bear some responsibility. There is no escaping this. But it is only a nagging feeling in your head, not a black mark behind your name on God's offenders list. Voting left a kind of sick feeling inside me, but it wasn't as sick a feeling as not voting. Voting that makes a difference requires democracy. That is not part of this multiple choice situation we face at the ballot box. In my state, only a maximum of two names are on the ballot for each office. I think the system sucks, I may have been voting just to see what kind of people turn out and still believe it makes any sense. It is a downright peculiar institution in our country...very poorly run, The powers that be really appreciate Derec however. They keep adjusting the system to bring down the expense and lower interest in government. Stayathomes....enjoy your new Republican government. I don't get to enjoy. It doesn't seem fair.

 

[Blahface]

I think most people don't vote because they are lazy. My brother says he doesn't vote because everyone lies. He is full of shit because he knows absolutely nothing about politics and he is just making excuses. Some people who are informed and genuinely don't like the two parties also use this excuse. They will say that they don't vote to protest the system. I think this is bullshit too. I think that they are trying to convince themselves that they are in the silent majority and want an excuse as to why nobody elects their guys. If you genuinely want to protest the system, then vote for a third party candidate or do a write in vote. It is a much more effective form of protest when the winner is as far below the 50% mark as possible.

I don't necessarily think we should stigmatize people for just not voting, but we should stigmatize people who are massively uniformed. There are way too many people who didn't even know there was an election going on. Everyone has to pay a price for the ignorance of low information voters who vote with their gut. If it weren't for the low information voters, money in politics would not be a problem.

Perhaps we should have some sort of tax on ignorance. Every adult would have to take a test every few years to show they have some working knowledge about how the political process works. It would be nothing partisan; there would be no questions such as “The best way to boost the economy is to (A) lower taxes (B) increase minimum wage.” If adults don't pass this test, then they would have to pay an additional 3% in taxes and they wouldn't be able to qualify for welfare benefits.

 

[rousseau]

What about the 'voting is mathematically inconsequential' reason?

One thing that always gets me is people encouraging others to vote. We shouldn't be encouraging voting we should be encouraging informed voting and political engagement. What the hell is the point of guilt tripping someone into voting so they show up and tick random boxes for no reason? Hell, half of the American population regularly votes against their own interests, the country would probably be better off if less people voted.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

If you genuinely want to protest the system, then vote for a third party candidate or do a write in vote.

But then people tell them that voting for a third party is a wasted vote and they try to get them to vote for the party they don't want instead.

 

[ksen]

Maybe we should restrict the vote to landholding men.

 

[rousseau]

The problem is that even though each individual vote doesn't matter in and of itself, the larger the group of non-voters is, the larger the problems that the non-voters tend to have with the electoral system are. A disengaged populace increases the power of single-issue voters and a candidate can cater to their issue and then just do whatever the hell else he wants because it won't affect his job security. When that happens, the thing that he wants to do may as well be the thing that pays the best.

When you don't participate, you're doing your part to make the problems worse. It's a tiny and insignificant part, to be sure, but when taken with everybody else's insignificant parts, it can become significant.

The solution is to make voting mandatory, which I don't hate the idea of, but I'd add the caveat that voting should be made a lot easier. If I'm not registered to vote, let me register online, and hell maybe even vote online if security can be beefed up enough.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The OP title should read "Some people think they are smart because they don't vote."

What I like is that non-voters complain about not making a difference. If all non-voters voted a third party, the third party would win.

 

[Juma]

, and hell maybe even vote online if security can be beefed up enough.

a common misconception: the problem is not security. The important requirement is that the voter must never be able to prove who he voted for.

 

[rousseau]

, and hell maybe even vote online if security can be beefed up enough.

a common misconception: the problem is not security. The important requirement is that the voter must never be able to prove who he voted for.

Why is that a problem?

 

[prideandfall]

If all non-voters voted a third party, the third party would win.

because all non-voters would automatically vote for the same third party candidate if they voted at all... that seems totally plausible.

i am 35 and have never voted, and i never will.
i am politically knowledgeable and engaged (in an intellectual capacity), fairly well informed, and strongly ideological (in that i have ideology, firmly and vibrantly).
i also have concluded that while 'voting' and 'democracy' as abstracts are great, what exists in the US is in fact a systemically corrupted structure, from the top to the bottom.
the electoral college, gerry-mandering, the awe-inspiring stupidity of the american public... every facet of voting in the US from the system in place for voting itself to the teeming mass of literally, physically, retarded people who constitute the voting public makes the entire enterprise an inherently and insurmountably broken system, and i just don't want any part of it.
despite my liberal philosophical bent and my absolute horror at the bat-shit lunacy of the republican party, taking part in the system would sicken me more than does the unfavorable result of elections decided by people like me not voting.

 

[Bronzeage]

One of the freedoms we enjoy, right along there with the freedom to vote, is the freedom to abstain. I used to have a neighbor who was born in Cuba and was old enough to remember the Revolution. When he came the US, he got his citizenship and registered to vote, but never voted. He said he spent too much time at mandatory political rallies and wanted nothing to do with politics of any kind.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

One of the freedoms we enjoy, right along there with the freedom to vote, is the freedom to abstain. I used to have a neighbor who was born in Cuba and was old enough to remember the Revolution. When he came the US, he got his citizenship and registered to vote, but never voted. He said he spent too much time at mandatory political rallies and wanted nothing to do with politics of any kind.

Well, he'll just have to suck it up then! Murica.

 

[Valjean]

ApostateAbe
This is the anti-authoritarian element of the attitude. Voting is all about choosing your master, they say. The way I see it, it is not about choosing a master, but about choosing a slave. The elected representatives are slaves to the majority of voters. That is why they generally do the will of the majority of voters. If they don't, then they get tossed out.

This is clearly not true, as the Princeton Oligarchy Study illustrated. http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746
Congressmen serve the interests of those who fund their campaigns and keep them in power. They serve the interests of the companies that will hire them on leaving Congress - at astronomical salaries.
Congressmen already spend half their working hours fund raising. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/08/call-time-congressional-fundraising_n_2427291.html

Politicians in both parties, as a matter of fact, overestimate their constituent's conservatism. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/08/call-time-congressional-fundraising_n_2427291.html

 

[bilby]

Voting is mandatory here. While there is no online voting, and there are no voting machines - everything is done on paper ballots that can be re-counted as many times as necessary - the AEC nevertheless makes a huge effort to ensure that nobody who wants to cast a vote is unable to do so.

Of course, as the ballot is secret, the effect of the law is not to make voting mandatory, but rather to make attendance at the polls (or submission of a postal ballot) mandatory. The penalty for not doing so is a small fine, and each election a handful of the eligible voters choose to risk the fine rather than attending (or simply fail to vote by accident - by not knowing the election is on, or getting the polling times wrong); and another small fraction of voters submit an invalid ballot paper, either due to a deliberate choice not to vote, or to a failure to understand how to correctly fill out the paper.

At our last Federal election, the House of representatives turnout was 93.23% (13,726,070 of 14,723,385 enrolled voters); Of those voters who turned out, 5.91% (811,143 of 13,726,070 ballots cast) were invalid (The AEC refers to these as 'informal' votes). So the total number of Australians who exercised (deliberately or by accident) their right NOT to vote was 997,315 who didn't vote at all, plus 811,143 who didn't vote correctly giving 1,808,458 out of 14,723,385 enrolled voters or 12.3% of eligible voters as the maximum number who could possibly have deliberately chosen not to vote.

Of course, of that 12.3%, some probably wanted to vote, but failed due to error or incompetence to achieve their objective.

So we can conclude that in 2013 at least 88% of eligible voters in Australia did not choose not to vote (probably more, as some of the informal votes were doubtless intended by the voter to be valid; and some of those who didn't vote may have intended to but failed to make the polls in time, or mistook the date of the ballot).

In US Federal elections, in Presidential years, turnout is typically in the low 50% range; in 2012, it was 53.6%. That is a huge difference; and unless there is some fundamental cultural difference between Australian and US citizens, the most obvious reason for the discrepancy is that most US citizens who don't vote are not failing to do so out of some heartfelt principle; They are not voting because they are too lazy to show up.

When not forced to show up, about 46% of people don't vote; When they are allowed not to vote, but still have to either show up, or pay a small fine, about 7% don't show up; and about 6% of those who do show up choose not to cast a valid ballot, giving about 12% in total who don't vote.

So we can estimate that the US population is (roughly) comprised of 55% who vote (although this falls to about 37% in mid-terms); 12% who deliberately don't vote, because of their principles or beliefs; and 33% who don't vote because they are too lazy to bother (rising to 51% in mid-terms).

Making a positive decision not to vote seems to be the explanation only for about one in four non-voters. Unless Americans are massively more cynical about the political process than Australians (which I find very hard to believe), three out of four non-voters (rising to four out of five at mid-terms) are people who have an opinion, but are simply too apathetic to express it.

 

[Jayjay]

I think the voting systems where you go to polls every 2 or 4 years and then just wait and see is what encourages laziness. Of course people don't give a shit during elections, because they are trained to not give a shit any other time either.

To fix it, I would propose makign voting more cumbersome. Every three months, there should be a recall or approval vote for the candidates. So if you vote someone to the office, that person has to keep his approval high enough or he gets the boot. This way, apathetic voters would have the power to change the system, and the voters would just keep status quo. And polticians would have to be on top of their game all the time and not just during campaigns.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

I think people are conflating apathy with laziness.