Voting turnouts are low, and unless anyone wishes to content that statement I'm not going to bother finding any sources. My question is this: Why are low voting turnouts so bad? Seriously, what difference does it make to the entire democratic process? If anything, it's good because then the only people left voting will be the people with a strong desire to engage themselves politically, and these people are more likely to make informed decisions...are they not? And the leader/policy is still decided upon by a majority (in first past the post elections anyway), it's just this majority of votes is not as big of chunk of the general populace as it could be. And yeah, it may be a shame that humanity is not embracing democracy...but that's a sentiment, not a reason. My biggest problem is when people don't vote, yet they still believe they have the right to bitch about politics. Sorry, but if you didn't help choose the leader then you are not given griping rights. Again, why should we be concerned with low voter turnouts?
I think it would be interesting to find any reliable statistics on bitchers & voters. Most everyone I know who expresses dissent also votes, but I haven't encountered anything approaching hard data on the subject. I think common sense would indicate that anyone who sincerely cares about issues and has a sense of civic responsibility is a habitual voter.
Complaining is easier than participating. Exactly. So why would we want apathetic and civicly irresponsible people to vote? People who aren't voting SHOULDN'T be voting, if they are totally apathetic. If anything it prevents random choices from screwing up what the educated majority wants.
Low voting turnouts is bad because extremist (right or left) groups would gain higher representation in a government. That’s exactly what we recently witness in France, thanks God, their election system required a second vote were the majority of lazy voters waked up and realized that every vote counts. …In the US, we don’t have that safeguard, so we’re stuck with Bush. I come across people that don’t vote (but I wouldn’t call it “My biggest problem”), and yet they bitch around complaining right and left about government policies. At times I feel it is better that they don’t vote since in the great majority, they only know how to bitch and not how to get informed, in fact some times they even bitch around about how sickening are those know-it-all that don’t vote. Life can be a bitch! :m:
I'm not of this opinion, but I know a lot of people that view voting as a joke. When your options are Bush or Gore, who agree on a lot more than they disagree, its hard to motivate oneself to get out and vote. I think that even a marginal difference is a difference and therefore voting is worthwhile, but its not like people's votes are really going to change things unless we get a serious candidate who holds opinions that are at odds with the status quo.
You're saying Gore would have been a better choice? Those are not your only choices. If you vote for someone else, than your vote counts against both, a fact that some people don't quite realize. Are you volunteering?
Low voter turn out is also happening over here,I think it because the choice is the same which ever way you vote.
Odin, I don't have the resources to be a serious candidate. One of the reasons we don't have more serious candidates outside the mainstream is that to run outside of the two major parties they can only run if they're independantly wealthy. And its true that voting for a third party candidate shows your dissaproval of the others, but since you know they're not going to win its not likely to motivate people to vote.
Two things...one, as pointed out, extremists could get more influence, since they would likely have high turnout among themselves, given the nature of the groups. If not for that, I'd agree that apathethic voters don't hurt the system. Second, how do you think the emergence of a third party into the regular voting would affect turnout and elections overall? Not that I agreed with their platform, but the last election the Green party with Nader running almost got enough votes to run in the general election. While I doubt he had a chance, if he had gotten a few more percentages of votes, the Green party wouod have been eligible for political funding...quite important. I really wanted to get them on the ballot, not for them to win, but to stir up the political pot this next election. But since they missed the mark, they don't get the help the other two parties get, which makes their effort more difficult. Not questioning this system, I don't think anyone and everyone who wants to run should get money, but it would be more interesting to see some variety in the choices, so a third party vote isn't just a vote for neither dominate party.
