Is An Uninformed Vote Better Than No Vote? 1048
ras_b asks: "I don't pay attention to politics at all, and so I will not be voting in today's elections. My family has been telling me that this is a mistake and I should vote anyway, partly because I have slightly conservative views which agrees with their political outlook. My reasoning is that since I am totally uninformed, I shouldn't vote. I don't want to vote Republican or Democrat, only to find out later I totally disagree with something a candidate stands for. So, here's my dilemma and my question: Is an uninformed vote better than no vote?" This issue is touched upon in a posting by Ezra Klein, of the The American Prospect, who disagrees, arguing against a similar assertion by Greg Mankiw, from a suppressed Fortune article. Greg says: "Sometimes...the most responsible thing a person can do on election day is stay at home ... If you really don't know enough to cast an intelligent vote, you should be eager to let your more informed neighbors make the decision." What do you think?
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Let me answer your question with this statement (Score:3, Insightful)
Odds are, you will never agree with any candidate's views 100% of the time, unless you are the candidate. Even then, you won't agree 100% of the time, judging from past politicians.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Let me add that odds are you will agree with one candidate more than the other(s). Voting isn't about getting everything you want on every single issue. That doesn't happen in a democracy -- you'll have to become dictator of your own nation to realize that little fantasy. Voting is about moving the country in a more positive dir
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Your snide remark is incorrect. To get your way all the time you must simply share the opinion of a sufficient representative majority on every issue you care about.
And most people are only particularly interested in a handful of national issues.
You also fail to account for positions of principal or conscience. Given a
Re:Let me answer your question with this statement (Score:3, Insightful)
Pardon? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a perfect example of the fallacy of appeal to authority. Being smart but ignorant does not somehow make your ignorance any more valuable than that of stupid people.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
But the nice thing about smart people is sometimes they can bridge their ignorance with inferences that stupid people cannot make. Whether those inferences make them less ignorant (
Re:Pardon? (Score:5, Funny)
In Bushels?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I'm sorry. I believe you misspelt "Bushificationalisms".
Re:Pardon? (Score:4, Interesting)
That said, anyone who can go this far without understanding the basic political temperaments of the parties is someone who doesn't know which sleeping bag has the rattlesnake.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Smart people can often realize when someone is trying to mislead them, while stupid people are much more likely to fall for it.
Who is more valuable (to use your term): The person who knows the extent of his own knowledge, or the person with factually incorrect "knowledge?"
Re:Let me answer your question with this statement (Score:5, Insightful)
Being smart gives you no advantage when voting unless you know something about the candidates. If you don't know anything about any of the candidates, you are reduced to guessing. In this case, the only information you have available to you is the candidates name, party and the position they are running for. You have nothing useful with which to draw a meaningful conclusion as to the best candidate.
In this particular situation, a stupid person who knows nothing about the candidates guesses just as well as a smart person who knows nothing about the candidates.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That may be technically true but it is ALMOST NEVER the case in politics. At the very least, a person knows which party's general philosophies most closely match his own.
Voting based only on something like that isn't ideal. But it IS better than the masses who vote because they saw a commercial that said "Kevin Bacon voted against veterans," where the veteran issue was a rider on a bill promote the kicking of puppies.
One is
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem is that once you spend the time and learn about your candidates, you realize they're all corrupt bastards and not one of them is fit to hold power.
Re:Let me answer your question with this statement (Score:5, Insightful)
That in a nutshell is why democracy is ineffective, dangerous, and should be abolished.
Re:Let me answer your question with this statement (Score:4, Insightful)
Democracy is the worst form of government--except all the others that have been tried.
Personally, I think the best answer would be a democracy of educated people. Make the high school curriculum better. Make teaching lucrative enough that intelligent people consider it as a career option. Make economics, formal logic, philosophy, and finance mandatory high school courses.
Re:Let me answer your question with this statement (Score:5, Insightful)
Too true, and so sad. I didn't actually vote until I was 26 because of my fear of my own ignorance. I was buying into the political rhetoric that the issues were complicated and I needed considerable research to provide a properly informed decision on election day.
But what the hell does that even mean? "Properly informed" by whom? What critical piece of information was *I* missing that somehow invalidated my opinion, or at least made it less worthy than others? Did I honestly belive that the electorate which did believe in themselves enough to vote were doing an adequate job of choosing the leadership of this country? Is the list of those to vote *for* even adequate to the task? I clearly belive this is not the case, but what should I then do about it? Am I then charged with civic responsibility to either run myself or inspire a worthy candidate? Would this obligation then charge me with doing my utmost to get into office? How far would I really have to take this responsibility?
Of course, the answer for me turns out to be far more simple. My problem wasn't ignorance, but procrastination. I would always wait until the last moment to decide if I should get informed on the issues, until I eventually decided to not bother. I mean, I didn't even know where or how to register! Yet, but taking a little initiative to start researching before the election, I quickly found the information I needed from my state website, which also listed all the candidates which would be on my local ballot. Using the little state bio information provided was more than enough to google each of them. Although there is certainly a lot (sic) of biased political information on the web, it really didn't take me long to decide which candidates I preferred. I registered as an Independent, and more often than note my votes tend to cross party lines. However I suspect this isn't so much that I'm a moderate, but because our sad excuse for a two party system has turned into giant political monoliths that blur the issues in an attempt to garner mass appeal.
Re:Let me answer your question with this statement (Score:4, Informative)
So if you're too lazy to vote, or to research at least some of the candidates positions, you're really shitting all over the efforts and lives lost of people that DID fight for the right to make sure that you have the right to vote.
Anyway, IMHO if you don't vote you really don't have any leg to stand on to complain about any governmental laws. If Congress decides to attack Iraq or invade North Korea, and you get drafted, DON'T COMPLAIN if you didn't vote. If Congress decides to massively raise your taxes, DON'T COMPLAIN if you didn't vote. If Congress passes laws allowing eavesdropping on all your emails and web browses, DON'T COMPLAIN if you didn't vote. Etc, etc.
Nobody knows all the issues of the candidates themselves, their opponents have teams of staffers who can dig through mounds of legislation to find some obscure clause in some prior vote to say "Candidate X voted AGAINST clean forests" or something like that.
In a nutshell, GET OUT AND VOTE!, regardless of whether you consider yourself informed or not. Democracy (yada yada, representative republic yada yada) is the people's voice, and some percentage of uninformed people would still be representative of the populace.
But if you consider yourself uninformed, ask yourself if you like how things are going in the country. Consider Iraq, Social Security, Geek Issues that are brought up on Slashdot, etc. If you like how things are going, then vote for the same party in power. If you want change, vote for someone else.
One final comment - Voting breeds more informed voters. Meaning that once you start to vote you'll start paying more attention to issues that matter. Hell, you might even start writing to your Congressman about issues you care about (they really listen to their constituency, especially when they're up for re-election). It's kind of like if you're in the market for a pickup truck, you start to notice all the kinds of pickup trucks around your neighborhood that you never would have seen before.
Re:Let me answer your claim with a rebuttal (Score:4, Interesting)
As for your second argument, I'm just going to say that someone a lot more authoritative on the issue than yourself grants unconditional right to complain about any political desire you wish, regardless of wether or not you vote. It's generally referred to as the first amendment to the US Constitution, and technically it isn't even limited to people who can vote.
Regarding your third point, we're not a democracy, we're a republic: it's not a system to bring the will of the majority on every issue, it's a system to place the correct people in power to make the correct judgements while preventing abuse of governmental power. Frankly, I'm rather glad of this, given my experience with the political ignorance of the average citizen. (Preceding assumes that you're in the USA, which seems reasonable given that you refer to 'congress' and not, say, 'parliament', use american syntax, and are on a
Regarding your advice on selecting a party to vote for, I provide the simple counterexample of switching from, say, republican to democrat: your strategy just failed, because you voted for a clone of the party already in power. You have to be reasonably informed to even select a party that would cause some sort of policy change.
And, finally, no, voting does nothing to improve voter informedness of itself. In fact, simple proportioning tells us that the more issues you cast a vote on, the less time you will spend on average considering each issue, since there is a finite span of time for each election and assumably you spend what you can spare in either case.
Rebuttal complete. Do I get a cookie or something? 'cause I'm starving over here.
Re:Let me answer your question with this statement (Score:4, Interesting)
He also detirmined that overall, it's better if you don't feel strongly about the election that you don't vote. The analogy he used when explaining it to me was this:
Let's say that an office is throwing a party, and the host wants to know if he should serve peanuts or potato chips, so he sends around a survey giving the people attending the option to check either peanuts or potato chips. Let's also say that 50 people are going to the party, 40 don't really care whether peanuts or chips are served, 3 strongly favor chips, and 7 people are allergic to peanuts.
With the survey passed around all 50 people are forced to make a choice between peanuts and chips. While 40 of them don't actually have a preference, by forcing them to choose, it is possible that peanuts will win the vote, leaving the 7 people with a peanut allergy very unhappy.
However, if only those who cared strongly about the issue voted, chips would definitely win, the 40 people who didn't have a preference wouldn't be displeased, and only the 3 people would be unsatisfied. By limiting the voting population to those who strongly cared about the issue, more people overall were happy.
So, don't just vote because you feel you have to, vote because you care about the issues you're voting for. When you vote because you feel it is your duty, you skew the data, and it is possible that overall fewer people will be happy with the result.
Get Informed (Score:5, Insightful)
Get Informed.
Get to the Ballot.
Get your vote counted.
Period, end of story.
Voting reduces the effect of the "base" (Score:3)
I agree completely. Your "uninformed" vote is certainly at least partially informed. You've absorbed some information whether you like it or not. A lot of that information is propaganda, no doubt, but hopefully the "average uninformed" voter will get some signal through that noise. However, when the turnout is only 30% (as I believe predictions are calling for), who wins depends a lot more on who energizes their base more than what the majority believes (thus reinforcing negative campaigning).
VOTE!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
> Get to the Ballot.
> Get your vote counted.
I agree. There will be people who are not only less informed than you, but who also disagree strongly with you, who are idiots and who will vote. By not voting, you let their votes count more. Moral: You don't have to get that informed, just make your vote count a little.
On another note, I realise why choosing between just two candidates *is* hard. In Denmark, you can vote for the party which you identify as being in your vicinity on the po
Spoil the Ballot (Score:3, Interesting)
To simply not show up to vote says that you're too lazy to vote (and that you don't take the right to vote seriously)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
We still need an option for "none of the above, thanks".
Re:Get Informed (Score:5, Interesting)
So, you know that your vote has no effect in the grand total of millions. Why not vote your conscious? You'll know that you did the right thing.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I count people who vote for their party no matter what among those who are uniformed voters. They're MORE dangerous than people who just pick at random.
Everybody's hung up on candidates (Score:5, Insightful)
Nonetheless, there are lots of other things on the ballot you might be interested in voting for. Are you really, really, really against cigarette taxes? You might want to show up at the polls. Do you think that bond measures are just borrowing money we don't have, and you don't want to float any more bonds for your local schools? You might have an opinion on that, and the information on the ballot is going to be pretty straightforward. Do you think immigrants are great for America and all the crying about how they steal our jobs is hogwash? You might want to see what kind of things your legislators have proposed in the name of tightening up the borders. People have opinions, and the elections give you the opportunity to vote not just on candidates but on specific bills and measures that affect your local community.
My gut feeling, of course, is that the statement "I don't pay any attention to politics" is a total cop-out. Do you not watch the news? Do you have absolutely no idea about what's going on in the world and no opinions about it, either? I have a hard time buying this. There's a certain little voice in my gut that thinks that "I don't pay attention to politics" is tantamount to saying "I am a lazy couch potato with no sense of ethics or civic duty, who's totally happy with the status quo because I'm too self centered to ever be involved with my community or care what happens to it."
Re:Get Informed (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree completely. I ran into this issue for this election, and ended up not voting for anyone (although I did go to vote for the constitutional amendments referendum)
I don't get this "lesser of two evils" thing. I don't want to choose the lesser of two evils. If someone ties you down to a chair and asks me if I prefer to be beaten with the steel or metal bat, I answer that I prefer to be let go without harm. If those are the only two choices presented, I'll refuse to choose. Otherwise, you'll give the man a justification for the beating. He'll say, "well, he said he wanted to beaten with the wooden bat" in very much the same way politicians say, "the people voted for me. They approve of my actions." And they're right. So stop approving of their actions if you don't like them.
The question is what to do when you don't like any of the choices. Unfortunately, this takes a little bit more work than researching candidates for an election, and you need to get actively involved in politics. I haven't taken that step myself, but those who feel they're not doing enough if they don't vote should consider it as an alternative to voting for someone they don't like just because they think he'll hurt them less than the other guy.
Analogy time (Score:5, Insightful)
Instead of choosing between steel or "metal" bats, let's make the analogy closer to how many voters really feel. You've got the choice between being hit (very hard) with a bat, or being slapped (very hard) on the face. You have the option not to choose, but if you don't choose, they'll let someone else decide. What do you do then?
Having said that, I've got no problem with voting for a 3rd party candidate - just make sure it's an informed decision within the context of our voting system. Not voting, however? That's just letting someone else choose how to abuse you.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
- Get hit with a metal bat
- Get hit with a backhand slap
- Find a way to turn the tables and escape
In voting, you have three options:
- Choose Candidate A
- Choose Candidate B
- Run For Office
The reason why the options are so unappealing is because the population regularly misses that last item there.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If I had a family or went to a church, no fucking way would I run for office. Nobody has a squeaky-clean past. Even if some weirdo does have a clean bill of moral health, the bastards will make something up. Something believable, with
Dont vote for unopposed canidates (Score:3, Interesting)
When I vote, I make my mark for contested races and for referendums and I vote for uncontested candidates that I know do a good job of representing me.
Other candidates that are running unopposed for minor offices that I dislike or have no opinion of I skip entirely so that if there is someone out there who has gone to the trouble to organize a last minute write in campaign they will not have my vote against them.
Lesser of 2 evils -- Pure ignorance (Score:3, Insightful)
This is one of many excellent solutions for those who "can't decide who to vote for" or are afraid of "voting for the lesser of two evils".
You people need to get a hold of yourself. If you are talking about the lesser of two evils, or you are thinking of it, then your doing more damage than good. There is RARELY the lesser of two evils. Go back with your 20/20 heindsight and tell me of all the elections you can think of, where you voted the
3rd Party (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: 3rd Party - Libertarian - send a message! (Score:5, Informative)
The country goes the same direction no matter which party is in control. As it is sometimes said, both parties are running a train toward a cliff, it is just that one party wants to go off the cliff a litter faster than the other party. I don't want to go off the cliff fast or slow, so I'm not going to vote for either one of them (unless there is someone really good running, like a Ron Paul Republican).
However, a vote for a third party, such as the Libertarians, sends a much more powerful message than not voting.
Transporter_ii
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Every election, you hear people saying it's their patriotic duty to g
Agree (Score:2, Interesting)
So dont vote (Score:2)
People that blindly vote, that is far worse than not voting because it takes away accountability. The politician now knows those people will blindly vote for them, in contrast, the people that dont vote, dont count, but the people that do vote, are more likely to care that the person didnt live up to their expectations and vote his butt out next time a
No. (Score:2)
Suppose there was a vote held for to make it mandatory to grind all puppies and kittens into grease for face cream and everyone passed it out of ignorance?
Duh.
There's plenty of time left (Score:2)
Statistically speaking... (Score:3, Interesting)
In aggregate then hopefully that information will come out.
If you don't vote at all then you are literally giving other people control over your life. Voting is not ONLY about candidates. You can vote on issues/questions/propositions that increase or decrease taxes or affect your life entirely.
So to recap: If you were totally, completely, entirely ignorant than your vote will be canceled out by all the other voters who are totally ignorant. On the other hand if you have even a smattering of knowledge, that vote will not be cancelled out because it will "align" with other voters who also have a smattering of knowledge.
At the very worst your vote will cancel out someone else who makes a "bad" vote.
Re:Statistically speaking... (Score:5, Funny)
You must be new here.
Re:Statistically speaking... (Score:4, Insightful)
Just like voting, then?
Regards,
--
*Art
Read something (Score:4, Insightful)
This comes from a person who's too lazy to get off his butt and vote in an impending municipal election, so take it as you please.
I think not voting and voting while uninformed are both equally heinous. The solution to not voting is voting and the solution to voting while uninformed is to go read something--the newspaper, the internet, a candidate's brochure, whatever. It sounds to me like the problem isn't that you're uninformed, the problem is that you're lazy (like me). So, either get informed, or tell your family that you're too lazy to vote.
Ian
Re:Read something (Score:5, Insightful)
Well said, sir. Even if you start on election day you can read the manifestos/pledges/whatever of the parties you'd consider voting for, and find out a little about your local candidates. You can turn over in your mind whether to vote on an issue (such as economics, global politics or personal liberties) that you consider most important, or to make a 'tactical vote', go for a big party or a little guy etc. It doesn't take long to arrive at a decision you can at least live with for the next few years.
look at it this way (Score:5, Funny)
Is crapflooding better than a no post?
No (Score:5, Insightful)
The people who argue that it's somehow your "duty" to go vote are also full of it. It may be possible - may - to make a case that it is the duty of each citizen to cast a reasoned vote. But it would be ridiculous to claim that it's the duty of every citizen to, again, go to the polling place and flip a coin.
Now, a caveat: I would argue that an uninformed vote is vastly superior to an misinformed vote. So I, personally, am happier hearing that people went and just voted according to whim than hearing that people went and voted straight ticket (I find the odds of each candidate at all levels of government for a given party just happening to line up with your opinions on each issue at each level of government to be quite low). After all, basically random votes should, ultimately, cancel each other out.
That being said, the comment that you should be happy to let your more-informed neighbors make the decisions really ought to be incentive to become informed, so you don't have to trust what Joe Bloggs thinks of who's in charge.
A truly random vote wouldn't be so bad (Score:3, Insightful)
You're right that a random vote is much better than a misinformed vote - if a million non-voters decided to go the polls and start flipping coins, they'd basically just add gaussian noise with a 500 vote standa
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
We have more than 2 choices you know... (Score:5, Insightful)
Then don't! Sigh... why is everyone so stuck on the 2-party system? No wonder people are uninterested and uninformed. We have so many choices with everything in life yet we limit ourselves to two political parties, both of which have more in common these days than not.
VOTE THIRD PARTY! For my third party of choice see my sig, but really please just vote for anyone but the Republicrats.
It's not the voters (Score:5, Informative)
To quote Bill Hicks... (Score:5, Insightful)
'I think the puppet on the right shares my beliefs.' 'I think the puppet on the left is more to my liking.' 'Hey, wait a minute, there's one guy holding both puppets!' 'Shut up! Go back to bed, America. Your government is in control.'"
In the time you spent reading slashdot (Score:4, Informative)
It's not that hard to find out a cantidate's position on ten or fifteen topics. No matter who you elect, they will do something you don't like, but you can get a pretty good idea in fifteen minutes.
Hop to it.
Don't vote ignorant (Score:4, Insightful)
If you don't know, stay home.
Related (Score:5, Interesting)
Long story short, he argues that because people don't personally bear the cost of holding ridiculous political beliefs, they relax their standards of intellectual rigor, similar to how they do with religious beliefs. They thus use voting to appeal to their "feel good" side rather than seriously analyze the issues (like the would with, e.g. their own finances), resulting in destructive policies all-around.
So he takes Mankiw one step further and says that it's not just ignorance that's a problem, but irrationality. If it were mere ignorance, the errors would cancel. But, Caplan, claims, they don't -- they skew the wrong way.
3rd Party voting - can't go wrong in USA (Score:5, Interesting)
They'd HAVE to change the system to a more fair electoral system.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, yes they can believe that. And they do.
They'd HAVE to change the system to a more fair electoral system.
No, no they wouldn't. It took them over 100 years to entrench the two party system so firmly it will be nigh impossible to dislodge it. What in the world makes you think they are about to give that up? Because a couple of people don't like it?
As long as the majority
Moot point, so please vote (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm sure there are people who are so ignorant they shouldn't vote, but the fact of the matter is those people don't know they're ignorant and hence won't choose not to vote because of it.
laziness (Score:4, Informative)
Question is a Logical Falacy! (Score:5, Insightful)
1. If you are not following politics, then how would you -ever- know if your representatives did something you did not agree with.
2. It's a good bet your Representatives are going to do things you disagree with. Again, since you don't follow politics, I'm not sure how it is you will know.
3. It took me about an hour last night to check my understanding of the candidates/issues and then make voting notes. Your favorite search engine makes it easy.
It's 1:45 PST, so pretty much everywhere in the U.S., your polls should be open and you have an hour to get your facts straight on the issues and candidates in your area.
Many people have fought and died for over the last 200+ years so that YOU have the priviledge of participating in our democracy. There is no excuse. Get informed and Go vote.
When I'm uninformed... (Score:4, Insightful)
When I'm uninformed, I do some of the following strategies:
I hope this helps!
Re:When I'm uninformed... (Score:5, Insightful)
Show up to vote, but only vote on the candidates / questions that I am familar with. For example, 4 years ago I only voted for 1 candidate and left the rest of the ballot blank. Today I left about 1/3rd of the ballot blank.
I agree, but NOT FOR BALLOT MEASURES. Government office is a temporary position, but ballot measures seldom are reversed even if they do obvious harm once passed. When in doubt, VOTE AGAINST CHANGING YOUR STATE'S CONSTITUTION.
This is a big problem in Oregon. Too many things, in my opinion, are placed on the ballot as Constitutional amendments. I vote against most of these things, even if I fundamentally agree with the measures. The Constitution is not a dumping ground for piecemeal amendments. These issues should go through the normal legislative process.
If you care... (Score:3, Insightful)
Do your informed neighbors share your interests? (Score:5, Insightful)
But that isn't necessarily true. Suppose uninformed voters tend to have some characteristic that separates them from the general population. For the sake of argument, let's say uninformed voters tend to be younger and poorer than informed voters. Clearly, younger and poorer people will have a different set of interests than older and wealthier people, and policies that benefit one group might harm the other. A young, poor, uninformed voter who decides to stay home and let someone more informed make the decision for him may be handing his vote over to a policy that will harm him, whereas even if he went to the polls himself and just picked a candidate randomly, he might have a better chance of casting it for someone whose interests are more closely aligned with his own.
It's Sad Really (Score:3, Insightful)
What's that? You want to be even more informed than what you can get in 5 minutes? Well, now that's a different question: "Ask Slashdot: How Much Information Is Required For Me To Make An Informed Vote?" (The answer to that question is either none or infinity.)
You cannot accurately predict the future behavior of the people you vote for. Many 'informed' voters voted for Bush last time and now regret it (and think of all those Democratic primary voters who voted for Kerry). The candidates you are voting for are actually - gasp - real people. And there's an incredibly high likelihood that once they're elected they'll change their positions on any number of important (to you) issues. And using past life experience to predict future behavior in office is no guarantee either (Ahem... McCain v. Torture)
If you don't feel like searching the web. Just go and vote. It'll just take a minute. And at the very least, if you go through the process of voting now, next time there's an election you may remember this point in your life and try a little harder to be prepared.
Don't be silly (Score:3, Insightful)
Consent of the Governed (Score:3, Insightful)
Otherwise, just the "special people" would vote, only their kind of voting process would go on, and only they would be part of the system that rules them for the next year or two or four or six. And eventually that cut-out part of the people would become ungovernable.
Elections are orderly revolutions. Why should disorderly revolutions have all the fun of ignorant masses deciding the rulers?
Vote 3rd-party (Score:3, Interesting)
3rd party candidates (Score:3, Interesting)
Unexpectedly, the local race was pretty easy to decide. For our city council there were two incumbents who have done a fairly decent job. The other candidates went from flaky to just plain deranged.
Similarly with the water board... the quality of the local water is pretty good and it's cheap and they've done a good job maintaining a good supply. If the incumbent has done a good job, why change it?
Secretary of State for California was also a no-brainer for me. Debra Bowen, the democratic candidate, has made numerous statements in support of an open-source voting system while her republican opponent is fine and dandy with Diebold and co and more worried about illegal immigrants voting.
I seriously considered 3rd party candidates for governor, but none of them put forth a compelling reason why I should vote for them and either came out as being too far to the right or the left.
I'm sorry, but if I'm to vote for a Green Party or some other 3rd party, a majority of their views should be relatively mainstream middle of the road. After all, whoever is elected will need to work with the state legislature. I mean, why can't a Green Party candidate come out for the environment and not be totally anti-corporation, i.e. try and encourage corporations to be more eco-friendly. Most corporations aren't really evil and have their place. Some actively help promote environmental protection.
The propositions took a bit of research.
Some positions I just didn't know enough about, so I left those blank. Some I went by endorsements since I knew some of the people making the endorsements.
Start small if you must. (Score:4, Insightful)
But of course, that may seem a dauntingly large step. If it's too intimidating, then start small. Almost every election has several races and issues to be voted upon. So pick one. Get informed about that issue. Read the information provided by the candidtaes, or the initiative text or whatever. Ask your friends. Read the papers. Check out local blogs. Think about it. Form your own opinion, then vote accordingly.
Leave the rest of the ballot blank if you must. There's no penalty for undervoting, so just vote on what you know. It's not that hard.
Try again next election... but pick more than one thing to vote on.
Don't wait, just get started.
More dangerous than uninformed is underinformed... (Score:4, Insightful)
This means:
-The candidate that will push policies that align well with the views of the majority of the constituency may lose to the slime ball who sinks the lowest and sways the most 'sheep' to vote for them. A strong factor is stressing things that have nothing to do with policy, or when they do focus on the opponent's voting history/plans they do so in a headline sensationalist way (i.e. 'He voted against the PATRIOT act, would you want an unpatriotic representative?').
-Your pool of likely candidates to win consist solely of those who already powerful and wealthy, who can either afford to fund such shallow campaigns or align themselves with those who do, at which point you can be assured they are likely to have no grasp on the 'common' person's experience, and/or have agreed to completely be the bitch of the rich and powerful. If a very level-headed but middle-class person of no particular extraordinary means who is independent would be the best candidate and widely popular, he will still not get into the media outlets. This used to be an unfortunate fact that people could not easily overcome, but now with the internet people have a venue to campaign, but *only* if the voters would proactively research the candidates. That's the up and down of the internet, anyone can publish, but only those that want to read will.
A lot of people argue that the uninformed balance out between both parties, and that's a bad statement to make. First the implication is that no independent or third party candidates should ever matter. Secondly, truthfully speaking, there are almost *no* uninformed voters, just those with useless information or bad information they are brainwashed into thinking is important. If they were truly uninformed, they wouldn't even recognize the words 'democrat' or 'republican' and being significant and different from 'independent', 'libertarian', 'green party' or what have you.
The result is that we have a system consisting of two parties that have ceased to mean much at all, with independent and third party candidates consisting largely of overly extreme viewpoints. If someone were, say, a republican truer to the original creed of reduced government, but not overboard, in a sane system that candidate could be libertarian, but if they are moderate they will jump into the republican camp even though the party doesn't represent that anymore, because it's the closest 'realistic' fit. Republicans *vaguely* are about reinforcing the current social structure and trusting business to manage the welfare of the economy, but not much more can really be said, some would cut back on government size and spending, some would increase both. Democrats are vaguely about increasing social programs, but again it's not a hard rule and not much else can be discerned. For example, based on the widespread principles, the occurrence of democrats rightfully criticizing a lack of fiscal responsibility in the republican party should be exactly backwards, but it's happening.
Wow... (Score:4, Insightful)
Wow...
There are people who would give their lives for the ability to do what you shrug off so easily. Your lack of enthusiasm for the freedoms you've been blessed with is a DISGRACE and you should feel ashamed. You have brains and you've chosen not to use them, which is the most horrible thing anyone could ever do. Go read up on your elected officials and the issues that you have the ability to affect. There's really not that much to learn and it should only take you a couple of hours. It is unacceptable to either not vote or to cast an uninformed vote. The only right thing to do is to get informed and to fulfill your civic DUTY, a duty that people are DYING for even as I write this. Your lack of respect for their sacrifice is astounding. I don't give a rat's ass what your political affiliation is. I'm a liberal at heart, so I probably disagree with some of the things you and your parents believe in, but I'll be damned if I'll let you sit there and say voting isn't important enough for your time.
Re:Has no affect (Score:4, Informative)
Something I read over lunch today was germane to this discussion. As I was ready to post the link, I read your comment first thing.
The link: http://www.cato-unbound.org/2006/11/06/bryan-capla n/the-myth-of-the-rational-voter/ [cato-unbound.org]
Quote from the first paragraph:
Re:Has no affect (Score:5, Funny)
This is only true for extremely bad values of "pretty well".
Hurts independents (Score:5, Insightful)
Hypothetical Numbers: Suppose 1/2 the population doesn't care, but votes anyway, by flipping a coin for rep or dem. Now, of the remaining half, who do care, suppose that just under one third will vote rep, just under one third dem, and just over one third will vote for the independent candidate. If everyone who doesn't care stayed home, the independent would have a plurality. If everyone who doesn't care votes, then it is a tossup between the rep and dem candidate, each of whom now have just under 5/12 of the total vote, whereas the independent, preferred by caring voters, only has just over 1/6, or 2/12 of the total vote.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not a great assumption. Witness all the get-out-the-vote campaigns by both parties. These only work because distribution of voters is anything but uniform. Why on earth would they spend money on gettting voters to the polls if the numbers would just cancel each other out?
The truth is, in districts where the distribution of occasional voters favors their side, they'll try to get out the vote. If distribution of sometimes-voters favors the oppo
Re:Hurts independents (Score:4, Interesting)
If elected I would serve under the same sort of social ethics that motivate me to remove stranger's garbage cans from the middle of the road, but frankly the idea gives me the fucking willies.
From my personal perspective I think the essential problem is not so much getting independents elected, but getting them to run. The same reasons that make them independent make them disinclined.
Plato had something to say about this.
KFG
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
KFG
And independents are important! (Score:5, Insightful)
The two-party system is NOT part of the American way. The strangehold of the two party system is what gets all kind of bad politicians - from both sides - to get elected without having real positions on issues, and then to pass laws that suck because it's politicially infeasible to vote against your party. It didn't use to be that way.
I'm no fan of the current administration or of the current members of congress who have aligned themselves most closely with it. Which is funny, because I'm really and old-school Republican. But I'm not going to rail against them here. I also have a lot more to be unhappy with from the people in charge - the Dems haven't been ABLE to do anything federally I really didn't like recently. But there are definitely people I love and hate in both parties. What's sick is the number of votes along party lines for crappy legislation...
But our government was founded on the policy of it being hard to get anything done. That's what "checks and balances" means. You should need broad-based support from different sectors to get anything done. Our current two party system doesn't do that. As long as no one is going to stand up to their party, we need at least one house of congress or the president to be different than the other two until we can change that or get more independents.
My first piece of advice is this: In THIS election, for the House at least, vote Democrat. House terms are only two years. For the next two years we are basically guaranteed of a Republican President. This situation is peculiar to mid-term elections... In this particular mid-term I have the same advice about the Senate, because there is zero chance of the Dems getting more than an EXTREMELY narrow majority at this point, so the impact after 2008 is minimal.
Next, if you can't make an informed vote - a vote informed enough for you - then I say make a real effort to vote independent, and do it for local races too. Green and Libertarian seem to be the dominant third parties - one for each direction. But even if they AREN'T your alignment, vote for one of them, preferably whoever is polling higher. It takes almost no research to see that in most major races they have no chance, and therefore your vote can be guaranteed not have an effect on THIS election - which is what you wanted, right? But those results are published far and wide.
The increasing number of independent votes helps finance independent parties, helps establish their creditibility with voters (most of whom have the reverse of the submitter's position - they don't want to "waste" their vote - people hate voting for a loser) and generally gives them an increasing chance to win some elections (starting at the local level) If enough people do it, it also sends a message to the politicians in both major parties that they have something to worry about and that what they actually do in office might just be important.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You can see the lines of fracture developing when Washington first tried to fit Hamilton and Jefferson into the same administration.
The only thing that is going to give currently-minor parties (they are no more "independent" than the majors) a reasonable chance of winning more than the occasional office is radical reform of electoral systems, which is probably going to have to be led by a citizen initiative
I think winner-take-all ia too
PIPA polls suggest non-uniform distribution (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:PIPA polls suggest non-uniform distribution (Score:5, Interesting)
well, alot of us held our noses and voted for him because we didn't think kerry got it regarding the war. we also hoped and prayed that he would leave his big spending, federal takeover of everything, ruinous trade and immigration policies. but alas, we've been hoodwinked. and now he's not even fighting an agressive war. I want my money back!!!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I find it odd that somehow, those who protested the vietnam war are now putting so much faith in generals, the same
Re:PIPA polls suggest non-uniform distribution (Score:5, Funny)
Just keep your personal, embroidered copies of the homosexual agenda secure, okay? We can't let the right get ahold of any of them.
Re:Has no affect (Score:5, Funny)
You don't hate family, do you?
Re:Has no affect (Score:5, Insightful)
Abstinence is the best protection (Score:5, Interesting)
This election, I voted on the on the candidates and propositions, but abstained (left them blank blank) on deciding whether to keep or oust the laundry-list of judges and other unrecognized names. My reasoning is that while I know enough to vote on the issues that matter, I know nothing (and care little) about the the head of the school board. It there's strong reason to vote either way, then I figure that those familiar with the issue will do so; I don't want to dilute the potency of their vote by casting an a vote at random.
In the previous vote, I had simply voted for "what sounded good" on the issues I'd never heard of, and as a result ended up voting the wrong way on some important issues because the wording on the ballot was severely deceptive (though that's a topic for another discussion).
Re:Abstinence is the best protection (Score:5, Insightful)
Then you will have no cause for complaint when "intelligent design" is taught as biology, video surveillance systems are ramped up to Supermax proportions and Office 2007 is introduced into the classroom.
Not necessarily (Score:3, Informative)
If truly random, then the expected deviation from the expected mean varies as the square root of N (with N being the number of random votes). That is, although the expected proportion is 50%, the expected deviation from that proportion is significantly non-zero. If I flip a coin 1,000,000 times, I can't tell you whether there will be more heads than tails, but I can tell you with a fairly high degree of certainty that the number of heads will not be between (for example) 499,900 and 500,100. Specifically, t
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Mod that up to +5. If enough people just "vote randomly" then the effect will, by the law of large numbers and/or the asymptotic equipartition property and/or (insert impressive mathematical/statistical result here), contribute uniformly to either side, thus cancelling out as the parent says. This also moves the vote closer to 50/50, but doesn't affect the victory margin.
I don't understand this "50/50" thing you mention. On the Oregon ballot, for instance, there are three candidates for Governor. Wouldn
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If you flip a coin 50 million times, you can be pretty sure the result falls within 24.9-25.1M range.
A spread of 200,000 votes is way more than enough to have tipped many elections in US history.You should vote, here's why (Score:5, Insightful)
2. Even if you do know every policy of all of candidates, you're not going to agree with all of the policies of any one candidate. This is a feature of the electoral system folding politics into two parties. Until the electoral system is reformed the best you can possibly do is vote on broad general principles.
You should NOT vote unless you like the system (Score:4, Insightful)
So? When the incumbent is just as evil, just as blatantly operating outside the limits set by the constitution, when the government itself is completely, utterly out of control, as are the parties, as are the corporations, what difference will helping the incumbent or the challenger make? You are proceeding from an invalid position, and that is, the presumption that politicians are a force for good, or at least, that one might be a force for less evil. This has not been demonstrably true for many years, at least in the USA.
I don't agree with any of the policies of any of the candidates. I find them repugnant, in point of fact. Furthermore, I am personally unelectable because just about no one is willing to believe that they are invested in an evil and corrupt system, and no minor party exists that represents even a tiny fraction of my views. They're all blind and bloody optimists, as near as I can tell. The libertarians are the closest thing to reasonable, and they are a confused bunch of puppies.
Election day means nothing to me. You're either going to have democrats or republicans come out on top. They'll both continue to wreck the country, distance themselves from the founders and framers, blithely ignore the very idea of liberty, and steal from me using coercion, or violence if I am foolish enough to resist said coercion. They've taken my home under false pretenses and for grossly insufficient compensation (supposedly for the Tock's Island "dam"... which they never built and incompetently turned into a park) they've used my taxes to invade a sovereign country that was not attacking us and murder untold numbers of innocents, they've suspended habeas corpus, they coddle, support and project religion to an unconscionable degree, they've criminalized many forms of sexuality, free speech, all manner of personal choice, they've actually co-opted the voting process, even the voting hardware, they lie about each other and themselves, they are operating completely outside the bounds the constitution lays out... Voting is the opportunity to ask for more of the same, and no less.
Voting puts forth the very strong implication that you support the way the system works, as you are willing to participate. Well, I don't support the way the system works, as far as I am concerned, it is about as broken as it can get and still superficially resemble the occasional fragment of democratic procedure or any vestige of a republic well enough to fool the middle part of the gaussian.
Voting offers the sheep the illusion of control, without even a chance of actually handing any degree of such control over. If you enjoy voting, you should probably be examining what your core values stand for. If anything.
So that's why I don't vote. No point. Douche and a turd.
Re:You should vote, here's why (Score:4, Insightful)
Not voting benefits/harms both runners equally. Now, the incumbent often has an advantage, but that's just because people recognise him (better the devil you know). If those uneducated voters who'd vote in the same guy again simply because they recognise him instead stayed at home and sat on their thumbs on voting day, the incumbent's advantage would be reduced, not increased. Uneducated votes decrease, meaning educated votes have proportionately more weight.
2. Indeed. Unless you really have no interest in politics, or the "general principles" of both parties are equally attractive to you, in which case you should simply not vote.
Voting without understanding who you're voting for is like 300 million people sitting in a car all snatching at the wheel to try to get somewhere. If you can get over the childish insistence on being "the one who decides where you're going" you'd probably be better off in the long run sitting back and letting people who knows how to drive do the driving.
This even works when the choices seem against your preference in the long run. Ask a hundred people what they'd like from a candidate, and most will say "lower taxes" and "increased safety/security". If everyone gets what they want the country would be a bankrupt police state within a couple of elections[1].
Of course, certain choices a government can make (running up huges debts, wars) may be bad for you in the short term and the long term... but when this happens you'll have a preference for one candidate (or rather, an antipreference for the other), so point 2. will no longer apply, and you can vote with a clean conscience.
There's nothing magical about "everyone's mistakes cancelling out" - sure hopefully, if stupidity is divided 50-50 between supporters of different parties they'll cancel out... but even if this happens they're still diluting the votes of the people who do care, and who do have a clue.
Think of it like this: You can add acid to a cake and you can add alkali. You can also add a dollop of cake-mixture, but only if you know enough about cake-making to mix it correctly yourself (and most/many people don't).
Sure, if anyone who wants to can throw in a cupful of either acid of alkali then eventually with enough people the cake won't burn your mouth and it won't dissolve your jawbone. However, that doesn't mean it's as good as a cake where the fuckwits abstained and the qualified chefs had a greater hand in the outcome.
To be clear: it's vitally important that anyone who wants to can vote - this is the essence of democracy. It's actually harmful when people are forced or pressured into making uneducated votes, as these don't reflect any meaningful relevent opinion and only serve to dilute the votes that do.
[1] Insert your own joke here.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Has no effect (Score:3, Interesting)
Exactly. In California, for example, the wording of propositions must be specified in the positive: A "yes" vote always means to adopt the proposed change, a "no" vote always means to reject the proposed change.
An uninformed voter could vote "no" on all propositions. This is not an unreasonable thing to do.
Not voting is not neutral: It is supporting the majority or plurality (not incumbents).
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
>given much of a choice really, and I don't feel that it's going to matter who is voted
>in, because by virtue of being on the ballot to begin with... the candidates all
>conform or are inline with those who are already in power already.
Man did you drink the Kool-Aid. Nowhere is it written that we have a two party system.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
to democracy. If you wish to address the usual issues of apathy, etc. which are used to
bolster the case for this abomination you could go along way by simply enstating a
federal voting holiday.