A simple question:

If you live in a country where voting is optional, do you usually vote, or not?

And if not, why not?

why not? all of the candidates are douchebags, and are equal in their douchebaggery. i think that is a damn good reason. besides, the two-party system and separation of powers leads to such centrist candidates and such stagnant public policy that it usually doesn't matter who is elected. :p

I always make it a point to vote, even if i have to do it by absentee ballot or drag my lazy butt out of bed at 7AM. WHY? because its my privalege as a citizen of my country. its also my DUTY to inform myself of the different candidates and their views and stances.

Thats my biggest pet peeve. People who vote party lines instead of really caring about who the people are. I figure if you are just gonna check the box that corresponds with your "usual party affiliation" and do no research or couldnt care less about who wins or loses, STAY AT HOME. you might as well have, because an uneducated vote is (in my opinion) twice as bad as no vote at all. if only because it might help some poor stupid schmuck win who really shouldnt have.

uneducated? perhaps they just agree with party doctrine? where are you at spag? it is my experience that people select their party based on how closely its ideology aligns with their own. therefore a candidate from a given party ought to adhere to the values of the party in general. if you share those values, what more do you need to know about them? how many times they have cheated on their wife? how often they pay their taxes? what religious creed they follow?

uneducated? perhaps they just agree with party doctrine?

I think that spaganya has a fairly valid point here, actually. Plenty of people seem to throw their support behind one candidate or another without really paying attention to what their specific agenda or specific stance on the issues.

Voting blindly just because of party affiliation isn't all that useful, (especially in a primary election, for instance) because quite often you don't have two candidates that follow their party lines exactly, and in something as big as a presidential race then usually the winning candidate is the one who gets to set the party agenda anyhow.

Anyhow as of yet I don't have a voter, I only became registered to vote about a year ago, and that has a lot to do with my age. I have been of voting age long enough that I've already missed out on some local elections, but then again I haven't been paying much attention to local politics, so I shouldn't be voting in those anyway. The upcoming presidential vote in November will be my first time going to the polls, and I think that it's a great way to cast my first vote. Say what you will about George W. Bush, he can still motivate people to get out to the polls (even if it is to vote his crooked lying antagonistic ass out of office :D)

I rarely vote only because most of the candidates suck. Even if there may be a lesser of two evils, I'd rather not put my vote towards either scum. But when there's a good candidate, I vote for them. I liked Kucinich the most for Democrats and Nader for Green/Independant. Too bad Kerry won the nomination because "he looks like a president" (roflmao)

Thats my biggest pet peeve. People who vote party lines instead of really caring about who the people are. I figure if you are just gonna check the box that corresponds with your "usual party affiliation" and do no research or couldnt care less about who wins or loses, STAY AT HOME. you might as well have, because an uneducated vote is (in my opinion) twice as bad as no vote at all. if only because it might help some poor stupid schmuck win who really shouldnt have.

I agree 10000000%!

- N

i would think congressional elections are just as important as presidential elections. most beautiful way to cripple a president you dislike: give the opposing party a majority in congress. but could kucinich and nader ever actually effect any reforms? and what makes a good candidate?

bleh. anyhow, i still hold that not voting is far worse than voting along party lines. voting is a privilege, a chance for the common man and woman to have their voices heard. and not voting is just a big slap in the face to the whole institution of democracy...can't believe i just said that. :bugeye: :rolleyes:

uneducated? perhaps they just agree with party doctrine? where are you at spag? it is my experience that people select their party based on how closely its ideology aligns with their own. therefore a candidate from a given party ought to adhere to the values of the party in general. if you share those values, what more do you need to know about them? how many times they have cheated on their wife? how often they pay their taxes? what religious creed they follow?


I was speaking of people that blindly vote on party lines often with a party that if they even took the time to research and find out the outstanding views, would find that are not even in sync with their own views. For example, i know a 35 year old guy that votes republican just because his parents voted republican. Never you mind that his political views, were he to take a look at his actual beliefs would be WAY liberal. Those are the people i am talking about. Uneducated people vote incorrectly about half the time!

I've only been able to vote for a couple of years and I think I do mostly unless I'm out the country or don't realise that it's election time. :p I'm not into politics though, so I usually just vote green, cos most of my friends are into opposite politics so they all tell me the good sides of each party which doesn't help. Though some have said voting green is the same as not voting at all. :rolleyes:

I'm curious what Aussies or others under it think about compulsory voting.

In Australia, there is what is called "compulsory" voting. However, it is not really compulsory to actually vote. It's more compulsory turning up to the polling booth. Nobody looks at what you write on your ballot paper at the time, and ballots are anonymous. So, you can show up, have your name ticked off on the electoral roll, and then write in big black magic marker "I hate politics!" all over your ballot paper.

In other words, if you have an ideological objection to voting, you can always vote informal, so your vote won't be counted. Much worse is the so-called "Donkey vote", where the person who knows nothing about the issues or the candidates simply writes down numbers in the order that candidates are listed on the ballot paper. That vote counts, unfortunately.

I'm probably in favour of compulsory voting, on a balance. I think that it can potentially jolt people out of their apathy and make them actually think about how they are governed for at least five minutes.

For all the times I've been to Oz, and the the fact that my girlfriend's Aussie, I didn't know that. Wow. We should do that in Canada.

I'd like to vote on the bills that any of the elected representatives write instead of them voting on what they write. Why not elect your representatives then let them write whatever bills they want then let we the people vote on those bills. That way they do their work and we can get the final say. The bills would have to no more than 2,500 words long and be written so that an 8th grade student could understand it. Then put the bill on the TV on a public station then we either call in our votes or write them or go online to vote within 3 weeks.

I would vote for those representatives that would do that type of job but no one else.

most beautiful way to cripple a president you dislike: give the opposing party a majority in congress.

And if one doesn't like any of the canditates this time around? Then it's all just a random crapshoot. Why waste a vote to vote for someone you don't like or do so randomly? Not voting is better in that way.

voting is a privilege, a chance for the common man and woman to have their voices heard. and not voting is just a big slap in the face to the whole institution of democracy...can't believe i just said that

Yes, voting is a privilege and is a big part to our democracy. However, our democracy also grants us the freedom of choice to vote or not to vote. One who doesn't vote is exercising their rights as much as the person who votes.

Now mind you, I'm not for people who don't ever vote period, but I can see when not voting is a good thing to do. I'd rather not have schmucks randomly voting for people or uneducated people voting for someone "just because" they aren't as ugly as the other person or some other stupid reason.

And for those that don't like either of the candidates, not voting is good as well because otherwise it's basically just a random vote. When I'm in that position, I wish I could vote no for all those candidates, that's a vote against them, but too bad voting is just "for" them. Voting is about the majority and I'll vote to try and get my favored person to be the party candidate, but if they lose that and now someone I don't like is the main party candidate, now what? I'm left with having to vote for people I don't like so why waste a vote?

and what makes a good candidate?

Well it's different for everyone so I can't really made a list of things. Basically a good candidate is one who shares similar views to the voters. I don't care how good the person is at getting things done if all the things that person is going to get done is a complete opposite of what I want to see, heh.

- N

I don’t vote if a hundred thousand or so other people will vote in my jurisdiction on the same issues, because then the odds of me skillfully affecting the outcome are too small. I pick up litter instead; that way it is certain that I will improve society.

I'm probably in favour of compulsory voting, on a balance. I think that it can potentially jolt people out of their apathy and make them actually think about how they are governed for at least five minutes.

I would rather that people have a choice. Some people are better focused on the things that they enjoy more from which society benefits--like art, literature, sports, etc. Five minutes by them, or even a few hours, would just be a waste of everyone's time and expense. There are enough well-informed voters in all but small-town elections to amply represent those who do not vote.

zanket:

I don’t vote if a hundred thousand or so other people will vote in my jurisdiction on the same issues, because then the odds of me skillfully affecting the outcome are too small.

If everybody thought like that, nobody would vote, and one vote could win an election.

I would rather that people have a choice. Some people are better focused on the things that they enjoy more from which society benefits--like art, literature, sports, etc. Five minutes by them, or even a few hours, would just be a waste of everyone's time and expense.

Do you really think that people have too many important things to do to give up 15 minutes of their time on a Sunday afternoon to head down to the voting booth to determine the course their government takes for the next four years?

There are enough well-informed voters in all but small-town elections to amply represent those who do not vote.

The whole point of voting is to elect truly representative representatives, isn't it?

If everybody thought like that, nobody would vote, and one vote could win an election.

Yeah, but part of the thinking is that, if everybody starts thinking like that, then you vote.

Do you really think that people have too many important things to do to give up 15 minutes of their time on a Sunday afternoon to head down to the voting booth to determine the course their government takes for the next four years?

I’d want voters to spend a lot longer than 15 minutes. It takes a lot longer to get to know the issues and candidates. Not everybody is suited for that personality-wise. I’d rather they not vote.

The whole point of voting is to elect truly representative representatives, isn't it?

Yes, but not everyone need vote to get almost perfect representation. The vote breakdown of any randomly selected 5% of a statewide population, say, will almost perfectly match the breakdown of 100% of the statewide population. Therefore 5% of the state can amply represent the entire state.

I figure if I don't vote and have my say, I can't have my say about the outcome.
Even if my vote won't make a difference to the outcome.

Like for instance my juris. is true blue. Like NOT even close. But by voting for a party like the Green party I give my say in the popular vote as to what I want for my future. Just because my vote doesn't alter who gains power, my vote does still say something.

Not voting is the most insulting thing I think someone could do. It say "I'm not well informed enough and don't care enough to have my say". At the very least, if you don't think there is someone suitable, you can reject your right to vote and say something. (rejecting your right to vote is taking the ballot, saying "I reject my right to vote as the candidates presented are not worthy of power" Your vote gets counted and it says something. Whereas not voting only shows apathy.

If you live in a country where voting is optional, do you usually vote, or not?



I live in the UK and I can't honestly see anyone worth voting for. I voted for Labour in 97 but am unhappy with the way the UK has become a haven for every single asylum seeker that fancies a free ride. It's not racism, it's just I object to having less opportunites for myself and seeing my tax money get spent on others first and Britain second. The Lib Dems would be even worse, letting Osama Bin Ladden in, if he said sorry...and they wouldn't have the balls to protect the country in a military conflict. Basically they would roll over and take it up the pooper. The Conservatives, are still too old fashioned and still for the rich man.

Green? Don't even go there...

But by voting for a party like the Green party I give my say in the popular vote as to what I want for my future. Just because my vote doesn't alter who gains power, my vote does still say something.

Your vote does alter who gains power. A vote for the Green party is effectively a vote for whichever of the two major parties you like the least. Bush won thanks to Nader voters who would’ve voted for Gore had Nader not run. Bush supporters, who know this well, are now helping Nader get on the state ballots. It takes only a plurality to win, not a majority.

At the very least, if you don't think there is someone suitable, you can reject your right to vote and say something. (rejecting your right to vote is taking the ballot, saying "I reject my right to vote as the candidates presented are not worthy of power" Your vote gets counted and it says something.

Such vote does not get counted. It’s just a waste of time and resources.

Whereas not voting only shows apathy.

You haven’t made your case. I showed that there is a logical reason--without apathy--for not voting.

That logic is flawed because those people could have chosen not to vote and the result would have been the same.

Actually no, rejected votes legally do have to get counted. Its a legal process.

Voting for the green party in my ride gives them support and monetary funding in the next federal election, thus bringing them closer to official party status. Having minorities that hold opposing views that you support in parliament is incredibly important, especially in a minority govt such as currently exists in Canada right now. Because the liberals don't have the majority to do whatever they want, to remain in power, and pass legislation they have to work closely with non-official opposition parties (like the NDP) to pass legislation.

Obviously if you were aware of how the government is actually run you would know that opposition plays a key part in legislature.

That logic is flawed because those people could have chosen not to vote and the result would have been the same.

The people who would vote for a minor party or not at all are in the clear. Those who would have chosen one of the two major parties as a second choice effectively vote for their least-favorite major party. Some 68% of Florida Nader voters said that Gore was their second choice. Had they voted for Gore, Bush would not be president now.

Actually no, rejected votes legally do have to get counted. Its a legal process.

Noted. It’s just a waste of time and resources then. Nobody really cares about the tally of those non-votes. The counting machine certainly doesn’t.

Having minorities that hold opposing views that you support in parliament is incredibly important, especially in a minority govt such as currently exists in Canada right now. Because the liberals don't have the majority to do whatever they want, to remain in power, and pass legislation they have to work closely with non-official opposition parties (like the NDP) to pass legislation.

Oops, I thought you meant the US Green party. I can’t speak to Canadian politics. I defer to you on that.

Obviously if you were aware of how the government is actually run you would know that opposition plays a key part in legislature.

I don’t know about Canada. In the US the minor parties only seem to hurt the major party they most emulate. I’d like to see the system in the US updated so that minor parties don’t do that. Not holding my breath though.

Well in a system where officially there are only three choices for anyone with an even mildly left leaning mind, its not surprising that Gore was choice #2 of 3.

The rejected votes play a part in the popular vote, and would play a larger portion if more of the people who just didn't vote rejected their right to vote.

Yes in canada minor parties are always involved in parliamentary debate, also the power part must have their co-operation if the official op. refuses to co-operate. Its called responsible government. Something I think alot of countries could do with a bit of.

"I'm not well informed enough and don't care enough to have my say".
now, i disagree with this. i think it is exactly the informed people who get sick of the candidates' bullshit and decide they are not worth voting for. unfortunately, the "schmucks" who understand nothing about the political process, but are as opinionated as a porcupine is thorny, always seem to turn up in droves. :(
Had they voted for Gore, Bush would not be president now.
oh, not this again! you know how gore could have won the election? if he had actually managed to win his home state!! :rolleyes: if you want to blame someone, blame the courts.

Regardless of blame, it remains true that when the left splits their vote and the right doesn't, the right can win with a minority. The court got involved as a result of the left splitting their vote.

I would, If I was old enough!
voting green is stupid, I think, since they won't win anyway, and you are not supporting the (in your opinion) better party of democrats/republicans.
Most people who vote for green are democrats, so if last time the greens hadn't existed, they would have voted for algore, and he would have won the election dispite bushs cheating...

REDEFEAT BUSH!

Ah yes, this again. Let's all blame the Green party and not the MILLIONS of other people who decided to just flat out not vote. Bad bad Greenie weenie party. Tsk tsk, shame on you. :rolleyes:

- N