Lower voter turnout=better outcomes?

[CorporalCaptain]

Australia, oh, the sufferage.

On my way out of town tonight, I'm gonna pick up some Pepperidge Farm cookies, by the way. Eddie, you've got me jonesin' for some.

 

[Davros]

Low voter turnout is only better for entrenched powers that don't like being questioned or held accountable.

 

[MacLeod]

I would say a higher voter turnout is better, as it is a better indicator of the wishes of the electorate.

The question that should be asked is what drives low voter turnout and what steps can be taken to rectify it. Personally I think mandatory voting is the wrong way to go, sure it might work. But democracy is about choice and part of that is the right to decide whether or not to cast your vote.

What people have to remember is that each and every vote does matter. You might not think it makes a difference but (at least in the UK) it has been known for a candiate to be decided upon deck of card highest card wins because they drew the same number of votes. Just think if you didn't vote you could have decided upon the outcome.

Even in areas with large majoritys some poeple might think I won't bother to vote as it won't make a difference but if all those people voted it might chnage the result.

At the last UK General Election voter turnout was ~65% still not great as only the 2001, 2005 and 2010 elections where the only ones since WWII to fall below 70%

Though in the US isn't voter turnout usually high for Presidential elections?

A link related to this thread.

http://www.idea.int/vt/index.cfm

 

[Mr. B]

It doesn't bother me. High turnout where I live just means more people who don't pay attention showing up to push all the buttons with 'D' next to their name.

Presidential elections are a bit different, though. A lot more people know what's going on with that race.

 

[Yevetha]

Davros:
Low voter turnout is only better for entrenched powers that don't like being questioned or held accountable.

Entrenched intrests lve low information voters who dont follow the news, they would never vote anybody out because they dont know about the lobbysts and the scandals.

Eddie posted:
Who says most Australians wouldn't vote even if it weren't a federal law to do so

If they would vote anyway why did they needed introduce fines?
Macleod qoutes:

I would say a higher voter turnout is better, as it is a better indicator of the wishes of the electorate.

Most voters are ignorant unfortunatly so they arent really expressing their wishes, more like making random bets.

 

[iguana_tonante]

It I were a betting man:

Left-wingers prefer high voter turnout
Right-wingers prefer high voter turnout.
Cryptofascists prefer low voter turnout (and would actually prefer to ditch all this democracy stuff).

Anyone with me?

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Republicans in the US are presently in the process of systematically suppressing Democratic votes, so I can't quite get behind your postulate, iguana, at least not without further discussion and clarification.

 

[iguana_tonante]

Republicans in the US are presently in the process of systematically suppressing Democratic votes, so I can't quite get behind your postulate, iguana, at least not without further discussion and clarification.

Actually, given your comment, I think we perfectly agree.

 

[Yevetha]

Republicans in the US are presently in the process of systematically suppressing Democratic votes, so I can't quite get behind your postulate, iguana, at least not without further discussion and clarification.

Would voter suression still be worth it if the districts werent so jerrymandered?

 

[Yevetha]

It I were a betting man:

Left-wingers prefer high voter turnout
Right-wingers prefer high voter turnout.
Cryptofascists prefer low voter turnout (and would actually prefer to ditch all this democracy stuff).

Anyone with me?

I prefer well informed voter turnout, not a low one.

 

[Roger Wilco]

I think low turnout generally advantages the fringe and "protest" votes and hurts the main-stream. I don't think it's a left vs right thing necessarily, although it may be in specific circumstances.

 

[Yevetha]

I think low turnout generally advantages the fringe and "protest" votes and hurts the main-stream.

Is that a bad thing?

 

[Roger Wilco]

Um. Yes?

 

[iguana_tonante]

It I were a betting man:

Left-wingers prefer high voter turnout
Right-wingers prefer high voter turnout.
Cryptofascists prefer low voter turnout (and would actually prefer to ditch all this democracy stuff).

Anyone with me?

I prefer well informed voter turnout, not a low one.

Realy? Because on my screen, the title of this thread reads as "Lower voter turnout=better outcomes?".

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Republicans in the US are presently in the process of systematically suppressing Democratic votes, so I can't quite get behind your postulate, iguana, at least not without further discussion and clarification.

Actually, given your comment, I think we perfectly agree.

Cool; gotya.

 

[Yevetha]

It I were a betting man:

Left-wingers prefer high voter turnout
Right-wingers prefer high voter turnout.
Cryptofascists prefer low voter turnout (and would actually prefer to ditch all this democracy stuff).

Anyone with me?

I prefer well informed voter turnout, not a low one.

Realy? Because on my screen, the title of this thread reads as "Lower voter turnout=better outcomes?".

Since relativly few people are well informed, hence the title.
Wilco posted:

Um. Yes?

Care to elaborate?

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Why wasn't the title of the thread,

Better informed voters=better outcomes?​

?

 

[Yevetha]

Because there are very few well informed voters.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

And, what? Voter suppression is so much easier than voter education and improving the news, eh?

 

[Roger Wilco]

Because there are very few well informed voters.

Unlike you, eh? Oh why can't everybody be as smart as you? Why are people who disagree with you so dumb and uniformed? Surely if everybody were super-super-intelligent, everything you want would have 100% approval, right?