32 replies to this topic

[TheAvengerLever]

I was talking to my mother today about the upcoming election. I'm not exactly sure how we got on the conversation, but I ended up asking my mother who she was going to vote for of the Big Two: Romney or Obama?

The answer she gave me made me quite uneasy. She said that she'd rather not vote for either but she's going to vote for "the lesser of two evils". Which in her eyes was Romney. I think.

But this raises a question. If that's why you're voting to begin with, (and I don't doubt that other people have the same mindset) then why are we still voting at all? If we have to pick between two people we don't like who have proven time and time again that they are liars and perpetuaters of drama then why would anyone want someone like that in a government office and why would anyone vote for those people?

What do you think of the current attitudes of retaining the status quo in society (particularly the U.S., as I don't pretend to know the prevailing attitudes of other countries) in regards to why we aren't trying harder to get ourselves out of this funk?

[Sir Deimos]

The impression that I get is the majority of voters blindly side with their affiliated party. That's certainly how it feels sometimes. Either way, between disillusionment among voters, and what many feel to be an unfair system via the electoral college, some reform is needed.

[Selena]

Voting for "the lesser of two evils" is probably the mindset most voters take. The voting system is flawed. Few people vote according to their beliefs, but rather "who is the closest to my beliefs and actually has a good chance of winning?"

• Funding has a lot to do with how many candidates get noticed. The richest one, or the one that can raise the most money via fundraising, will dominate the campaigns and get their name out there the most. People are more likely to vote for this candidate purely because they recognize the name, and anyone without extensive funding will not appear as "legitimate" as the ones with cash. This means every election ultimately boils down to money rather than politics. People rarely go out of their way to actually research everyone who's running (the only elections I abstain from voting in are the ones where I've accidentally forgotten to read up on the candidates).
• The only two parties that ever stand a chance of winning major seats are the Democrats and Republicans. There are plenty of people who would, if all parties were created equal, vote for the Libertarians/Independents/Greens/misc. But without massive support, those parties aren't going to win any significant elections. The only impact they can make in a major election is to use their votes to support the "main" candidate that is closest to their beliefs. AKA: The lesser of two evils.
• Voter districts (along with a lot of other things) are determined by geography; not total population. You can have a ton of Greens or Libertarians lying around. But if their population is spread out, they're not going to have any state or federal influence.
• The electoral college is, at this point, probably just a hindrance in presidential elections. But that's up for debate.
• The failure of the general population to vote would mean that only the hardcore fundies would vote. This would cause the polarization in American politics to reach new, detrimental extremes.

[Egann]

The impression that I get is the majority of voters blindly side with their affiliated party. That's certainly how it feels sometimes. Either way, between disillusionment among voters, and what many feel to be an unfair system via the electoral college, some reform is needed.

Washington's Farewell Address has turned out to be disturbingly prophetic on this note.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

I suspect that ripping the American Constitution up and rewriting it might solve a few problems, but no constitution will ever be perfect. Ultimately, the people of a nation need to be sensitive to the faults of their own form of government so that they can compensate for it. Unfortunately, most Americans are simply along for the ride.

I will say this, though. Whatever disagreements I have with another person, if they vote out of their conviction for what they feel is best for the whole I have no problem. Sit down, I'll buy you a coffee and we'll talk it over because, no matter the disagreement, we agree on what really matters. People who vote for their own interests I have no pity for. They're going to break the system and I can't convince them not to.

[J-Roc]

I never vote against something or vote for the lesser of two evils. Last election in Canada for the first time there was no candidate I supported so I abstained. Its my right, I'm not going to do a throwaway vote that's stupid IMO.

[Oberon Storm]

My mother isa liberal surounded by conservatives in her workplace. I remember once she was telling me how a few of her coworkers said they don't vote because they don't see any point in it. Something like that anyway. I gave my mom some argument along the lines of people that choose not to vote are pretty much dead weight along for the ride. While they still technically have every right to voice their opinion about the leaders in office it would probably be best they keep their mouths shut. I certainly wasn't about to add any legitimacy to any of their arguments when they made the active choice to not participate and still collect all the benefits that come with being an American citizen.

My position has changed somewhat since then. That was not long after I graduated high school. I have never been much of an idealist, but I was more idealistic at that time than I am now.

I recognize now that there are some like The Dude that simply cannot find a candidate they can get behind. No condidate comes close to their own values. I also now know there are some people I would rather didn't vote. They don't pay attention to what's going on. They don't do any kind of research. Others think they are paying attention, but really they are getting everything from Rush Limbaugh.

[JRPomazon]

I feel that despite the apparent evils and annoyances the two big candidates bring to the table, it's important to vote regardless. Which scapegoat will we praise and blame for the next four years? Is the devil we know better than the one we don't? Who knows? I don't know who I'd vote for myself but since I have been given the opportunity to make a choice for who leads the country (even if one vote means nothing at all) I might as well do something, ya know? I mean, it would seem like a shame not to vote for someone, even if it were one of the lesser candidates.

[Veteran]

Not voting is a pet peeve of mine. To abstain says nothing really, who can tell the difference between you making a point and someone else who simply forgets to vote?

No, if you want to abstain you should void your vote by going to the poll station and chalking NO ACCEPTABLE CANDIDATE across the whole slip.

[Oberon Storm]

I kind of wish that was possible.

[Twinrova]

Don't they always have a blank space where you can fill in whatever candidate (or whoever) you want, like underneath the two main guys? At least they do here. D:

[Elvenlord]

Or just vote for some crazy third party. I'm totally with Vet here. Even if there's no one you like, either fine the closest or vote for anything not of the two main parties. Staying home won't change things.

[Selena]

Deliberately not voting - as a form of rebellion rather than forgetfulness or accidental ignorance - has always irritated me. Because it actually does nothing but sway the vote to more extreme voices or the uninformed. So for whatever "raah fight the system!!" mentality someone has when they do that, they don't seem to realize that they only make things worse. The system itself has to be changed. Systems aren't evil, and civilization does not function without them. They just need to be constantly tweaked in order to accommodate social changes.

But the tendency to preserve tradition illogically overrides the need to alter the system. There's plenty of things that probably should be altered in the constitution to suit the modern age, but it's treated like some sort of holy text that cannot be touched or criticized (despite having plenty of amendments). This is why progress is always such a fight. And for those who do want change, it's way easier to just paint a big anarchy symbol on your clothes and turn your nose up at "the man" than it is to intellectually pursue genuine reform in a way that's actually productive.

Which is, really, the whole problem with the left wing -- all progressive ideas, and not enough balls to relentlessly pursue the vision. Modern republicans have the opposite problem -- the focus to play the system like a fiddle, but little interest in that there book learnin' (at least outside of one school of economics and GAWD).

[arunma]

Washington's Farewell Address has turned out to be disturbingly prophetic on this note.

Woah there buddy, you can't just post that kind of stuff. Here in America we make up shit about our founding fathers instead of actually going back to what they wrote. Alas, sadly, most Americans don't know that Washington warned us against stuff like peacetime alliances and political parties, and in all seriousness more people should read this (or at least the Cliff notes).

But yeah, most people do take a "lesser of two evils" approach. I'll give them this: it's practical. Yes, the system can be changed. But most of us have full time jobs and can't dedicate ourselves to this kind of a task, so it's easier to just vote for the lesser of two evils. Personally I don't think the Democratic party is evil, so I've got no problem voting for them. They're ineffectual and could be way better, but definitely not evil in my opinion.

[Egann]

I have no problem with people voting "for the lesser of two evils." This election I don't *really* have that problem, but I've had it before and unfortunately it makes sense. The problem is the party primary structure, where each party has a field of options and somehow you always wind up with two choices you didn't want.

Really?

Which is, really, the whole problem with the left wing -- all progressive ideas, and not enough balls to relentlessly pursue the vision. Modern republicans have the opposite problem -- the focus to play the system like a fiddle, but little interest in that there book learnin' (at least outside of one school of economics and GAWD).

That's the P.R. the parties put out; it's only about half-true. It's true that the big-name legislation which gets people's attention--like amnesty and healthcare--tend to be democrat sponsored, while the only issue republicans ever seem to have is taxation. You don't hear too often about tort reform or campaign finance legislation too much.

The money, however, is what really matters. I'm not sure anyone fairly knows the numbers because parties can keep closed books, but both parties derive most of their revenue from serving vested interests, NOT by passing legislation for their constituent voters. Republicans tend to get business and wealthy American donations because of their tax policies (most dividends are double-taxed) while a large part of Democrat revenue comes from public sector unions (remember how Reagan fired the Air Traffic Control Union when they went on strike in 1981?

Now remember that 95%+ of bills ARE NOT "big name" bills.

Let me interpret this into something your average political consultant will say; "Make a few big issues, get your constituents emotionally attached to them, then make a believable struggle at passing them. Then pass small bills that favor the people who pay you on the side." By and large, career politicians don't want to fix problems; they want to use them to distract their constituents as long as possible.

Woah there buddy, you can't just post that kind of stuff. Here in America we make up shit about our founding fathers instead of actually going back to what they wrote. Alas, sadly, most Americans don't know that Washington warned us against stuff like peacetime alliances and political parties, and in all seriousness more people should read this (or at least the Cliff notes).

They were smart, but they were still human. Too often we either treat them like inhuman brave geniuses or completely forget they existed. We forget juicy bits of history, like Hamilton and Jefferson had a nearly violent quarrel over whether or not there should be a national bank...

...Only for Jefferson to turn around and USE Hamilton's bank to finance the Louisiana Purchase. Hmm.

[Mark]

vote because I get fined $20.00 for federal elections or ~$50.00 for state elections. (i know...)
i wish not to vote because I dont have serious political inclination or knowledge - thus i donkey vote.
putting serious time into informing myself as to what to do with my one in ~20,000,000nth share in the country seems irrational to me.
democracy empowers people like me...

[J-Roc]

vote because I get fined $20.00 for federal elections or ~$50.00 for state elections. (i know...)
i wish not to vote because I dont have serious political inclination or knowledge - thus i donkey vote.
putting serious time into informing myself as to what to do with my one in ~20,000,000nth share in the country seems irrational to me.
democracy empowers people like me...

I've always wondered what the point of that Australian law was, aside from obviously getting all the input they can. Just because everyone votes doesn't mean democracy reigns. If a party can garner 30% of the vote they shouldn't be a majority ruler, but they can be.

[Crimson Lego]

If, hypothetically, I could vote I would probably do so so I could claim that I actually had some say in how my country was being run. Albeit the little difference it would make as a whole.

[Mark]

vote because I get fined $20.00 for federal elections or ~$50.00 for state elections. (i know...)
i wish not to vote because I dont have serious political inclination or knowledge - thus i donkey vote.
putting serious time into informing myself as to what to do with my one in ~20,000,000nth share in the country seems irrational to me.
democracy empowers people like me...

I've always wondered what the point of that Australian law was, aside from obviously getting all the input they can. Just because everyone votes doesn't mean democracy reigns. If a party can garner 30% of the vote they shouldn't be a majority ruler, but they can be.

I believe that it is largely to encourage political education and participation.
beyond that, there is a wikipedia page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_voting

[J-Roc]

I find that most Australians I talk to just do throw-away votes to avoid the fine, just because you are required to vote doesn't mean it encourages education.

[Nevermind]

They're the minority, really. Most of us know who we would rather vote for and go for the simple "Pick this one as the number one" vote and only the dedicated voters number all 56 or so boxes.

[Egann]

They're the minority, really. Most of us know who we would rather vote for and go for the simple "Pick this one as the number one" vote and only the dedicated voters number all 56 or so boxes.

...WAT.

What kind of ungodly nincompoop designs such an incompetent ballot scheme? Here in Georgia I show them my license, I get voting card, I walk up to booth, "Pick X, Y, or Z" three or four times for the contested elections, "Pick X or Y" for the party-backed elections, say yes or no to a couple of referendums, and then review my ballot. Takes perhaps five minutes on a long one, and that's assuming I need to read the referendums.

[Nevermind]

Sorry, my mistake. There are 76 Senators all up in the Upper House and we vote for either the political party (single vote above the line), or we number each representative for our state by preference in numerical order below the line (from 1 to however many people are running).

The other paper is to vote for the Lower House. We number who we prefer to represent our electorate in numerical order. All of these must be numbered.


...I think.

It's been a few years since I voted so I got my numbers mixed up but last time I was sure there were more than 12 boxes to tick...like...30 or 50...I dunno, too many.



Have at ye!

Edited by Lazurukeel, 30 August 2012 - 11:13 AM.

[Selena]

Real reason they have fines: There is no better source of revenue than taxing lazy people.



The US would eliminate the deficit within two terms, regardless of what the budget's like.

[Veteran]

They're the minority, really. Most of us know who we would rather vote for and go for the simple "Pick this one as the number one" vote and only the dedicated voters number all 56 or so boxes.

...WAT.

What kind of ungodly nincompoop designs such an incompetent ballot scheme? Here in Georgia I show them my license, I get voting card, I walk up to booth, "Pick X, Y, or Z" three or four times for the contested elections, "Pick X or Y" for the party-backed elections, say yes or no to a couple of referendums, and then review my ballot. Takes perhaps five minutes on a long one, and that's assuming I need to read the referendums.

Woah, you guys can organise that many ballots for one day?!?

The most I've voted in one sitting was twice! One for the local election and one for the general election. Referendums would never happen at the same time lest the booths explode.

[Selena]

I normally don't post videos because I prefer it when people say things in their own words, but this is helpful and relevant when it comes to voting procedures (although the creator has an obvious bias).

US / UK System:


Australian system:


Thus why Mitch has to order every candidate, whereas we just pick one and go.

[Veteran]

Ha! We just went through a referendum about first past the post vs the alternative vote, and that video (while logically sound) is blatant propaganda. The alternative of grading candidates in order of preference leads to mediocre parties that were no one's first choice gaining a majority.

It's dead-on about boundary lines, but the failings of first past the post isn't down to statistics, it's down to voters being morons.

[wisp]

I have always voted for the major candidate who comes closest to aligning with my views (generally a Democrat). However, the Electoral College basically renders that method absolutely pointless for me, because I live in a red state. So since my vote is completely ineffectual anyway, I've decided to start voting for the third-party candidates that I always preferred in the first place. This year I think I will vote for Jill Stein. This Republican/Democrat bullshit is getting us nowhere, and I may as well use my otherwise-absolutely-useless vote to help the other parties get some better recognition.

Sort of loosely related: Pogo and I know this anarchist who views politics as a form of organized, sanctioned violence. He feels that it's wrong to force any tax, behaviour, etc. on anyone by creating a law, and he thinks that we should all stop supporting the system - i.e. quit voting. I do agree with the guy on a lot of other controversial issues, but I'm not sure how refusing to vote is supposed to change the political system. Seems to me that if all the reasonable people quit voting, that would just ensure that the fringe would gain control and fuck everything up even more.

[Egann]

They're the minority, really. Most of us know who we would rather vote for and go for the simple "Pick this one as the number one" vote and only the dedicated voters number all 56 or so boxes.

...WAT.

What kind of ungodly nincompoop designs such an incompetent ballot scheme? Here in Georgia I show them my license, I get voting card, I walk up to booth, "Pick X, Y, or Z" three or four times for the contested elections, "Pick X or Y" for the party-backed elections, say yes or no to a couple of referendums, and then review my ballot. Takes perhaps five minutes on a long one, and that's assuming I need to read the referendums.

Woah, you guys can organise that many ballots for one day?!?

The most I've voted in one sitting was twice! One for the local election and one for the general election. Referendums would never happen at the same time lest the booths explode.

On my last local election last May there were about 14 items to vote on. Sheriff, Tax Commissioner, two judge seats, and our district's Congressional Representative were all up at once, and there were also about three referendums at the end. Even so, it doesn't take that long; on that same election I was in and out of the precinct in ten minutes, including waiting in line and paperwork.

Georgia's got a pretty efficient voting system.


EDIT: wisp, Georgia is only barely a red state. True, it hasn't been swung in any recent election, but democrat ties go rather deep in the cities and in most of the people who are too lazy to vote. If the democrat party of Georgia got their act together Georgia would easily be a battleground state if not outright blue.

I'm kind of grateful they're not. I see far too many political ads as is.

I normally don't post videos because I prefer it when people say things in their own words, but this is helpful and relevant when it comes to voting procedures (although the creator has an obvious bias).

While I see what you and he are both saying with the winner-take-all system, I don't think that ranking candidates really helps. Lessens the situations extremes, yes, but it doesn't change long-run direction. What's worse, as that the democrat and republican parties are effectively the most powerful political entities in American politics and this is one of the few things they can agree to hate. There's no way to change it. At least not in America.


I think that the best solution (in a clean slate restart way) is to reverse the idea of the American President/ Vice President ticket. Have at least three, probably four offices available in a given election. The winner takes the primary, while all the other major parties walk away with a meaningful position in the cabinet or the like.

The benefit of this system is that as the two major parties become a supermajority, the third party become effectively impossible to disenfranchise and the fourth will constantly be turning over as new parties form or die. In a four-position battle, if two parties hold 90% of the voters, a third party can be guaranteed the third position with only a 5%+1 vote, or a hair more than ONE FIFTH of the support either major party is getting. This both rewards parties for being popular with a more powerful position AND rewards intellectual diversity among representatives beyond the two party system.

And voters still only need to put one mark on their ballots.

Edited by Egann, 30 August 2012 - 07:19 PM.

[J-Roc]

Seems to me that if all the reasonable people quit voting, that would just ensure that the fringe would gain control and fuck everything up even more.

The alternative being..?

Always been a huge anarchism detractor, most of those supporting it don't realise it means they'd actually have to survive without ANY help. And they couldn't get their anarchy t-shirts at Hot Topic anymore

[Mark]

I find that most Australians I talk to just do throw-away votes to avoid the fine, just because you are required to vote doesn't mean it encourages education.

I think it probably does encourage a few people to think about it that wouldnt have otherwise.

Real reason they have fines: There is no better source of revenue than taxing lazy people.



The US would eliminate the deficit within two terms, regardless of what the budget's like.

I would be interested to know the figures. most australians turn out to cast a vote (sinceer vote or otherwise) and $20 dollars isnt much per person who dosnt. I wonder if it does offset the expendature of organising a vote.