Should voting be encouraged?

**HoreTore** · 08-21-2010, 13:19

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

Yeah you are right. Poor don't have it bad, they are just lazy when it comes to politics.

So much prejudice in such a short statement.... Impressive!

**Seamus Fermanagh** · 08-21-2010, 15:33

Originally Posted by HoreTore

So much prejudice in such a short statement.... Impressive!

I believe they were suggesting that most of the poor in Western societies aren't struggling to survive in quite so grinding a manner as would the poor in Haiti or Sao Paolo. I think it's pretty clear neither of them was evincing an Antoinette-esque attitude.

**pevergreen** · 08-21-2010, 16:38

How can you say that your government is elected by the people when only 63% of americans voted in the 2008 election?

95% of australians vote. Its 20 minutes max 2 times every 3 years.

**Sasaki Kojiro** · 08-21-2010, 16:44

Originally Posted by pevergreen

How can you say that your government is elected by the people when only 63% of americans voted in the 2008 election?

Because all the eligible voters could have voted if they wanted too.

**Tellos Athenaios** · 08-23-2010, 10:08

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

Because all the eligible voters could have voted if they wanted too.

But there is a deeper point though: if you live in a 2 party system where only ~63% of the electorate bother to turn up, then ~42% of the electorate can vote for 66% of all seats to one party. That equals a quite a scope for those 42% of the electorate to hand out a mandate to inflict an awful lot on the majority of the electorate which didn't vote in favour of the ruling party (i.e. and thus didn't grant any mandate for such decisions). I repeat: using those numbers, a ~42% support of the electorate is enough to qualify for a super majority. And it is quite possible to win tickets to the White House with the backing of only 35% of the electorate...

That is a pretty big bet on “silence is assent”.

**Sasaki Kojiro** · 08-23-2010, 20:59

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

But there is a deeper point though: if you live in a 2 party system where only ~63% of the electorate bother to turn up, then ~42% of the electorate can vote for 66% of all seats to one party. That equals a quite a scope for those 42% of the electorate to hand out a mandate to inflict an awful lot on the majority of the electorate which didn't vote in favour of the ruling party (i.e. and thus didn't grant any mandate for such decisions). I repeat: using those numbers, a ~42% support of the electorate is enough to qualify for a super majority. And it is quite possible to win tickets to the White House with the backing of only 35% of the electorate...

That is a pretty big bet on “silence is assent”.

What's a big bet? I can't see what you're saying here. You have like a dangling conclusion or something.

With everyone voting, you are making a bet that the 51% got it right. With not everyone voting you are making a bet that 51% of those who cared enough to go and vote got it right.

The president has the right to the powers listed in the constitution because he was elected by the fair process outlined in our laws. Having a majority of votes from all eligible voters is not necessary. Why would it be? I don't understand. We have mechanisms in our system of government that go both ways--to keep the people as a check upon the government, and to keep the government separate from the popular vote of the people.

**Tellos Athenaios** · 08-23-2010, 22:00

What I am saying is that your voting system in the USA implicitly assumes that a sizable number of the electorate silently agrees with what is decided for them by others. Thus, people who didn't bother to give their electoral consent are implicitly presumed to have given it anyway when a party uses super majority, or filibuster tactics in Congress & House of Representatives.

This is a problem which to some extent exists in any democratic system (because people who vote blank or don't vote can hardly be counted among active supporters of anything regardless), but it is more worrying when you look at the USA with two big amorphous blobs called “Dem & GOP” and less than two thirds bothering to vote for anything at all. So it'd be a stretch of the imagination that with those two amorphous blobs that can't even get all of their own representatives/candidates to speak the same party line somehow all of the people who voted on one of these candidates would do that. Which calls into question what things like a super majority or a filibuster really are worth, in terms of support from the electorate; at which point you have to wonder like pevergreen did: to what extent is the USA system truly (functionally) democratic?

**Reenk Roink** · 08-24-2010, 05:05

Trust me, just because I'm silent in not voting does not mean I assent to anything. It's a mixture of some (extremely well reasoned) apathy, along with pragmatic concerns of the real value of my vote and the fact that it's hard to find a candidate on the religious left which is the only group I would identify with politically.

Like the most esteemed pever points out, it is incorrect to say our government is elected by the people. More like just a portion of the people. Even in Australia it wouldn't be right to say that, although they come A LOT closer to it then we do.

**drone** · 08-21-2010, 22:19

Originally Posted by pevergreen

How can you say that your government is elected by the people when only 63% of americans voted in the 2008 election?

We don't have a Gah! option. Which I definitely would have used in 2008.

**a completely inoffensive name** · 08-22-2010, 02:33

Originally Posted by HoreTore

So much prejudice in such a short statement.... Impressive!

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

I believe they were suggesting that most of the poor in Western societies aren't struggling to survive in quite so grinding a manner as would the poor in Haiti or Sao Paolo. I think it's pretty clear neither of them was evincing an Antoinette-esque attitude.

I wasn't suggesting that. I was being sarcastic. You can't really tell me that when you have no home, no money and no job you are going to be thinking or even more important informed about politics are you?

**Rhyfelwyr** · 08-22-2010, 12:47

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

I wasn't suggesting that. I was being sarcastic. You can't really tell me that when you have no home, no money and no job you are going to be thinking or even more important informed about politics are you?

Is said the unemployed, not the homeless and bankrupt. I'm thinking about the parts of Britain where generations live off the state and never work, the old mining towns where the disappearence of heavy industry gave way to the benefits culture. They have a home more than enough money to get by, and all the resources they need to be politically informed (their parents certainly were back in the 80's), but they still don't vote.

**a completely inoffensive name** · 08-22-2010, 19:22

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

Is said the unemployed, not the homeless and bankrupt. I'm thinking about the parts of Britain where generations live off the state and never work, the old mining towns where the disappearence of heavy industry gave way to the benefits culture. They have a home more than enough money to get by, and all the resources they need to be politically informed (their parents certainly were back in the 80's), but they still don't vote.

Well, I have never visited Britain, so I can't comment on that specific group.

**rory_20_uk** · 08-23-2010, 09:48

People vote if there is a key issue and a difference between the parties.
If any party was stupid enough to have in their manifesto explicit cuts to key benefits the recipients would vote for those who will keep them.

Everyone does it. The unions back their strokes, the very rich and big business theirs (or more often both).

Before the election the senior GPs were clearly unhappy about the 50% tax bracket. I wasn't as my salary is nowhere near the levels required to be affected.