• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Voting when you don't like any of the candidates.

We're not the only country that has to vote for the lesser of two evils. I don't know why anyone would think it's so strange. It happens in every democracy.

And what good does a protest vote do in a country like the U.S.?

Give us that and no Presidential candidate would win more than 5% of the vote. The spite gene runs deep in Americans. And the novelty; people who've never voted would register just so they could draw pictures on ballots knowing they'd count for something. It'd become a whole thing here and would end up frustrating the process.

Besides, the ballot does not only contain the Presidential choice, it contains a whole host of other issues as well.

Finally, so what if a candidate doesn't support everything you say? Too bad. Has the most important candidate of a major political party running for a nation's highest elected office that fits that description ever existed? Voting promises just that: you get to vote. It doesn't promise that your favorite person gets on the ballot or even gets a chance to run. It gives you a choice and you have to decide which one is closest to what you believe. That's it.

So who is closer, even though far from, your ideal candidate? You figure it out and that's who you cast your vote for. To not do so is a tacit acceptance of whomever does get elected.
 
We're not the only country that has to vote for the lesser of two evils. I don't know why anyone would think it's so strange. It happens in every democracy.
That's not true at all; The US system is particularly designed in a way that is likely to generate a simple binary choice; In many democracies, the systems are kinder to minor party candidates.

In Australia, the federal House of Representatives tends to be a two party chamber, with few independents and minor party reps; but (at least until the recent changes) the Senate system gave minor parties a real chance at representation. And even in the Reps, we have Preference (Instant Runoff) Voting, so it is possible to vote for the minor party candidate you like, while not favouring the chances of the greater of the two major party evils.
 
I've never lived in a state where my vote mattered in any real sense - at least not more than the 'every vote matters' sense, because of an easily predictable blue state with 10+% margins. Now that I've moved and PA is looking like it could be close, I'm actually going to have to vote. Is it reasonable to be annoyed that my fellow citizens' stupidity is forcing me to perform my civic responsibilities? How can I protest?
Good news. PA won't be close. Closer than NY, but Clinton has a massive lead there.
 
Lol, do you think you might be projecting a little bit? Chippy old man, indeed. :D

it's pretty clear that it's a tongue-in-cheek complaint about Trump's support in which I never said that I hadn't voted before, only that now I HAVE to vote to cancel out the stupid.

Of course, that said, I can still understand enough statistics to know how much a single vote in a heavily skewed state is worth. Nothing.

As I said .... since I was 19 .... applies to 'cancel out stupid' which needs more tongues than you have cheeks when you add 'statistics ...know what single vote ...worth ...nothing'.

I see everything!!!

You are a citizen. Suck it up kid. Come up with reasons why voting even a state where your national candidates have no chance matters when it comes down to sewer rates in your community (a bit of basis you seem to have missed). In every election there are votes important to you. That's why us old farts vote in number. We understand. Too bad most of them are as conservative as they are old. :devil-smiley-029:
 
The Australian Electoral Commission did an analysis of 'informal' votes after the 2010 federal election, due to a significant increase in such votes over the previous (2007) election; an informal vote is any ballot that was cast, but cannot be counted.

They divide such ballots into 'assumed unintentionally informal' - ballots where the voter wanted to cast a valid vote, but failed to follow the instructions correctly; and 'assumed intentionally informal' - ballots where the voter did not intend to vote. Blank ballots, and those with obscenities, doodles and slogans are 'assumed intentionally informal', and these are the 'protest votes'. They amounted to just over half (51.4%) of informal votes, or about 0.87% of all votes cast in 2010.

So 6.8% of eligible voters didn't vote at all in 2010, risking a fine; and another 1.6% cast an invalid vote (for which there is no penalty) of whom about half deliberately didn't vote, and the other half invalidated their vote by not filling out the paper correctly (in federal elections, every box on the HR paper must be numbered for the vote to count; but in many states, only one box need be numbered, and about a third of informal ballots are papers that would be valid if cast in those state or territory elections. The 'assumed unintentionally informal' rate in each electorate correlates strongly negatively with the level of proficiency in English: "Five out of the 10 divisions with the highest informality rates at the 2010 House of Representatives election also had the five highest proportions of persons who, at the 2006 Census of Population and Housing, indicated that they did not speak English well, or did not speak English at all."

To me this suggests that low turnout in other countries, where failing to vote carries no penalty, is mostly about apathy rather than a deliberate protest - when required to attend the ballot or pay a fine, most people choose to attend; and most attendees choose to cast a valid vote - or at least to attempt to do so.

Thank you for the statistics Captain Obvious. Seriously. Thank you for the statistics. Now everyone can see the obvious. If they only bothered to open their eyes which I think most of them intentionally close when it comes to being a functioning citizen.
 
Lol, do you think you might be projecting a little bit? Chippy old man, indeed. :D

it's pretty clear that it's a tongue-in-cheek complaint about Trump's support in which I never said that I hadn't voted before, only that now I HAVE to vote to cancel out the stupid.

Of course, that said, I can still understand enough statistics to know how much a single vote in a heavily skewed state is worth. Nothing.

As I said .... since I was 19 .... applies to 'cancel out stupid' which needs more tongues than you have cheeks when you add 'statistics ...know what single vote ...worth ...nothing'.

I see everything!!!

You are a citizen. Suck it up kid. Come up with reasons why voting even a state where your national candidates have no chance matters when it comes down to sewer rates in your community (a bit of basis you seem to have missed). In every election there are votes important to you. That's why us old farts vote in number. We understand. Too bad most of them are as conservative as they are old. :devil-smiley-029:

Jeez, I hope your reading comprehension is better in the voting booth than it is on the internet. Did you not read my post?
 
Is it too late to nominate Loretta Lynch?
 
That's not true at all

Yes it is. It obviously and provably is.

The US system is particularly designed in a way that is likely to generate a simple binary choice; In many democracies, the systems are kinder to minor party candidates.

That'd be relevant if we were talking about U.S. Congressional seats.

In Australia, the federal House of Representatives tends to be a two party chamber, with few independents and minor party reps; but (at least until the recent changes) the Senate system gave minor parties a real chance at representation. And even in the Reps, we have Preference (Instant Runoff) Voting, so it is possible to vote for the minor party candidate you like, while not favouring the chances of the greater of the two major party evils.

So Australia has how many Presidents again?
 
Tigers! said:
You septics must really fed up.

Is this a typo or an insult?
Rhyming slang
Septic tank = yank
but in Australia we just love the diminutive forms of speech so we drop the redundant 'tank' and so septic = yank

- - - Updated - - -

So Australia has how many Presidents again?
We don't need no damn presidents. we have damn PMs.

- - - Updated - - -

You septics must really fed up.

Go fuck yourself, <insert insult that applies to Aussies here>.

You really wasted a bit of anger there.

We would say "Go visit a taxidermist, <insert insult that applies to Aussies here>."
 
Yes it is. It obviously and provably is.

The US system is particularly designed in a way that is likely to generate a simple binary choice; In many democracies, the systems are kinder to minor party candidates.

That'd be relevant if we were talking about U.S. Congressional seats.

In Australia, the federal House of Representatives tends to be a two party chamber, with few independents and minor party reps; but (at least until the recent changes) the Senate system gave minor parties a real chance at representation. And even in the Reps, we have Preference (Instant Runoff) Voting, so it is possible to vote for the minor party candidate you like, while not favouring the chances of the greater of the two major party evils.

So Australia has how many Presidents again?

Wha?

You said:
We're not the only country that has to vote for the lesser of two evils. I don't know why anyone would think it's so strange. It happens in every democracy.
Voting for the lesser of two evils does NOT happen in every democracy. That remains true whether or not we talk about U.S. Congressional seats, or about the U.S. Presidency.

The rest of your response here makes no sense - perhaps you mis-read my post?
 
We're not the only country that has to vote for the lesser of two evils. I don't know why anyone would think it's so strange. It happens in every democracy.
Colonel Sanders, have you ever heard of  Duverger's law?

From Maurice Duverger himself: Duverger: The Electoral System
Maurice Duverger, "Factors in a Two-Party and Multiparty System,"
in Party Politics and Pressure Groups
(New York: Thomas Y. Crowell, 1972), pp. 23-32.


The Technical Factor: The Electoral System

To these socio-economic and historical factors a technical factor must be added: the electoral system. I expressed its effects in 1946 in the formulation of three sociological laws: (1) a majority vote on one ballot is conducive to a two-party system; (2) proportional representation is conducive to a multiparty system; (3) a majority vote on two ballots is conducive to a multiparty system, inclined toward forming coalitions.
He describes the  Spoiler effect:
The brutal finality of a majority vote on a single ballot forces parties with similar tendencies to regroup their forces at the risk of being overwhelmingly defeated.

Majority vote on one ballot -- plurality voting -- first past the post (FPTP)

 Table of voting systems by country -- FPTP is nowadays not very widely used.
 
We're not the only country that has to vote for the lesser of two evils. I don't know why anyone would think it's so strange. It happens in every democracy.
Colonel Sanders, have you ever heard of  Duverger's law?

From Maurice Duverger himself: Duverger: The Electoral System
Maurice Duverger, "Factors in a Two-Party and Multiparty System,"
in Party Politics and Pressure Groups
(New York: Thomas Y. Crowell, 1972), pp. 23-32.


The Technical Factor: The Electoral System

To these socio-economic and historical factors a technical factor must be added: the electoral system. I expressed its effects in 1946 in the formulation of three sociological laws: (1) a majority vote on one ballot is conducive to a two-party system; (2) proportional representation is conducive to a multiparty system; (3) a majority vote on two ballots is conducive to a multiparty system, inclined toward forming coalitions.
He describes the  Spoiler effect:
The brutal finality of a majority vote on a single ballot forces parties with similar tendencies to regroup their forces at the risk of being overwhelmingly defeated.

Majority vote on one ballot -- plurality voting -- first past the post (FPTP)

 Table of voting systems by country -- FPTP is nowadays not very widely used. Also, nations that score high in various quality-of-life and quality-of-government measures, like the Nordic ones and Switzerland, often use proportional representation in their legislatures.
 
I've very seldom had to vote for other than the lesser of several evils. If you do vote, the winner takes it as an endorsement, and if you don't the choice gets immeasurably worse. Take your pick!
 
Though, fair play, some blokes once came around wanting to put me up for election to Parliament, I being away. Fortunately my Father told them I wouldn't be interested and neglected to tell me, thus saving me from a career of Parliamentary alcoholism. Imagine the problem of most posters here being faced with a choice between me and a British conservative of ONCE. Mr Sanders would seem much more right-wing! :)
 
You septics must really fed up.

Go fuck yourself, <insert insult that applies to Aussies here>.

You really wasted a bit of anger there.

We would say "Go visit a taxidermist, <insert insult that applies to Aussies here>."

Anger? Not really, I just wanted to return your insult in kind, but couldn't think of any common US insults for Aussies, probably because your continent, or island, or whatever it is, is mostly beneath our notice. Keep it up, though, and we just might have to plan a good invasion bombing nation building exercise down there.
 
So 6.8% of eligible voters didn't vote at all in 2010, risking a fine; and another 1.6% cast an invalid vote (for which there is no penalty)

How does voting happen for you? How many days, how many polling places? How many IDs?
IOW, how easy is it to cast that vote?
 
Down here in Houston, Texas, we have voting machines. One does not have to vote for every candidate, sometimes in uncontested races with a Republican, I don't vote for that candidate. Sometimes one can choose a third party, Green etc.
For president we will have Republican, Democratic, Libertarian, Green and others. Protest voting is easy enough. In Texas, I don't have to declare a party. Of course if I vote Democratic and there is a Republican run off, I can't vote Republican.
 
So 6.8% of eligible voters didn't vote at all in 2010, risking a fine; and another 1.6% cast an invalid vote (for which there is no penalty)

How does voting happen for you? How many days, how many polling places? How many IDs?
IOW, how easy is it to cast that vote?


Voting here is managed by the Australian Electoral Commission, whose remit is (according to their website) "To deliver the franchise: that is, an Australian citizen's right to vote, as established by the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918."

The AEC manages elections in accordance with their 'four elements of electoral integrity':

  1. Accuracy – all of the elements of the franchise will correctly reflect the characteristics and intentions of the electors.
  2. Completeness – the franchise will be delivered to every eligible Australian.
  3. Entitlement – the franchise will not be delivered to those not eligible to participate.
  4. Capability – the expectation that the AEC will do a competent job, consistent with the requirements of the relevant legislation and the Australian Public Service values. This is reflected in outputs that result from a focus on electoral integrity through operational compliance and the AEC's values of quality, agility and professionalism. Capability is made up of three sub-elements:
security (of elector information, AEC data, and physical assets such as ballot papers);
reliability (procedural correctness and compliance with policies and the Electoral Act); and
transparency (to candidates and voters, or data and processes, including availability of procedural justice).​

There is a lot more detail on the liked website; but what this boils down to in practice is that the AEC are proudly independent of party politics, and fiercely committed to ensuring that every eligible voter has the opportunity to vote.

Polling day is always a Saturday, and polls are open from 8am to 6pm. I have been a political party scrutineer at a variety of polling places (all metropolitan), and in my experience, the wait times for voters are rarely very long; There is usually a long line of early voters who arrive before the polls open, and this can take a couple of hours to clear (as more people keep arriving); there is another peak around lunchtime, and a third in the evening at about 4-5pm, but the total wait for an individual rarely exceeds half an hour even at the opening peak, the lunchtime rush, and the late afternoon peak. Between these times, there is often no wait at all at the smaller voting places; In my electoral division, there were 96,516 enrolled voters for the 2013 Federal election, and 35 Polling places within the division (mostly state schools) at which any resident can vote - so if everyone cast an ordinary vote at a polling place, there would be an average of about 2,700 voters per polling place over the ten hours of voting. Of course, some locations are more popular and/or accessible than others, so in reality there's a wide variation; The busiest location here had 3,658 votes cast, and the least busy only 182 - the less busy locations tend to be on the boundaries of the district, and share a school hall with a polling place for the neighbouring district.

Busy locations are supplied with more AEC staff (most of whom are volunteers, and many of whom are government employees during the week - quite a few are teachers at the schools used as polling places), so wait times are kept to a minimum; if you get bored of waiting or the lines are long, you can always come back later - or go to a less busy polling place nearby.

If voters meet certain broad elegibility requirements, they can cast a pre-poll vote, at one of four locations in the division, or at the Brisbane City Hall (which hosts pre-poll voting for a large number of surrounding divisions); pre-poll voting is open about three weeks prior to polling day. Eligibility for 'early voting' is determined as follows:

You can vote early either in person or by post if on election day you:

are outside the electorate where you are enrolled to vote
are more than 8km from a polling place
are travelling
are unable to leave your workplace to vote
are seriously ill, infirm or due to give birth shortly (or caring for someone who is)
are a patient in hospital and can't vote at the hospital
have religious beliefs that prevent you from attending a polling place
are in prison serving a sentence of less than three years or otherwise detained
are a silent elector
have a reasonable fear for your safety.

These rules are so broad, and so vague, that essentially anyone who wants to can vote early - and no checking or enforcement is done; If you say "I expect to be out of town on polling day", then that's good enough, and nobody will care if it turns out that you are at home that day after all. About 17% of votes in my division in 2013 were pre-poll votes.

Voters can also cast an 'absentee' ballot at ANY polling place in their home state or territory on polling day; or at a number of consulates and embassies overseas.

The AEC also has teams of mobile voting booths that travel to hospitals, prisons, nursing homes and remote areas on, and in the lead up to, polling day, for the benefit of eligible voters who are unable to travel to the polls.

It is now mandatory to show ID to vote in Queensland State Elections; The QEC sends every enrolled voter a voter card before the election, and that card is considered sufficient ID; but any other ID with the voter's name is also accepted. This is the only voter ID law currently in Australia, and is under review with a view to scrapping it (although similar law that would affect Federal elections is under consideration, so go figure). For elections other than QLD State elections, no ID is required; the voter provides their name and address details to the electoral commission staff, who cross the name off their list, and issue a ballot paper (or papers). These records are scanned and checked for duplications and discrepancies after the close of the poll, and any serious indications of fraud could, in principle, lead to the election being declared void and a new poll being called.

As voting is compulsory, and turnouts are very high, it would be very difficult to commit widespread fraud without it being detected in this way; I am not aware of it ever having occurred; although the WA Half-Senate election of 2013 was re-done in 2014 after 1,375 ballot papers went missing during the recount; A new election was ordered by the High Court of Australia, sitting as the Court of Disputed Returns, and a similar outcome would be expected if there were sufficient duplicated votes in a division to have likely affected the result.



TL;DR - it's very easy indeed, polling places are numerous and easy to access; wait times are short; and there are no ID requirements for federal elections at this time - you just tell the official your name and address.
 
Being rational, whether I like a person has no bearing on who I vote for because their personality has almost no bearing on the impact of them winning the office.
I voting for a political office holder, not a roommate or drinking buddy.

For the office of President, their impact has far more to do with which party they represent. The voters and other office holders of their party have more impact than anything I would like or dislike about the person holding office themselves. Since there is no greater threat in the US to moral and intellectual progress than the base voters of the Republican party and their office holders as a group, I vote to reduce their power as much as possible, which means voting so that someone else wins, which means voting for the Democrat no matter how much a dislike them (which in Hillary's case is quite a bit).
 
Back
Top Bottom