Lower voter turnout=better outcomes?

[cooleddie74]

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

Of course. It's the path of least resistance for the forces of ignorance. No matter what side of the spectrum one is on, more voting is always better because it brings more people into the debate and forces your side to bring its "A" game more often. When turnout jumps from fifty to eighty percent you have to be a better campaigner, debater and statesman in order to convince that many more people of the validity of your arguments. Our leaders as well as the public are both better for increased voter turnout.

 

[Yevetha]

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?

We are all reasonably well informed here.

Eddie posted:
Of course. It's the path of least resistance for the forces of ignorance. No matter what side of the spectrum one is on, more voting is always better because it brings more people into the debate and forces your side to bring its "A" game more often. When turnout jumps from fifty to eighty percent you have to be a better campaigner, debater and statesman in order to convince that many more people of the validity of your arguments. Our leaders as well as the public are both better for increased voter turnout.

Not necessarily, look at Sarkozy in France where a lot of people vote. High voter turnout did not top him from having ahuge fallout with the public.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-18/sarkozy-approval-at-lowest-for-incumbent-poll.html

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

Some people are just not interested in politics, the news are good if you can find the good journalists who care about their stuff instead of just pushing an agenda.

 

[cooleddie74]

That is Nicolas Sarkozy's fault, not the French voting public...anymore than John F. Kennedy's personal failings in his marriage were the fault of the Massachusetts or American voters of the 1950s and 1960 or the failure of the Carter Administration can be pinned on the American people who went to the polls and voted him into office in 1976. In the end a politician's failures are always those of him or herself and their party or inner circle. Sometimes all three. Pinning the blame for a politician's hubris and screwups on the voter is pretty silly. Many men and women who run for high office in the world's democracies fail to live up to the standards of the voters who put them into power, but that is the fault of those men and women, not the voting public. After all, the voter isn't responsible for that politician's foibles and weaknesses, especially if they aren't aware of them.

 

[Yevetha]

Pinning the blame for a politician's hubris and screwups on the voter is pretty silly.

In the Internet age we can wet these scumbags better tyhen ever, its unfortunate some people dont do it.

Many men and women who run for high office in the world's democracies fail to live up to the standards of the voters who put them into power, but that is the fault of those men and women, not the voting public.

Its the fault of both parties.


I guess we agree that higher participation does not necessarily mean better results.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

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

Some people are just not interested in politics, the news are good if you can find the good journalists who care about their stuff instead of just pushing an agenda.

So, does this mean that you support efforts at voter suppression, in case those efforts weed out people who "are just not interested in politics"? This is a "yes" or "no" question, by the way.

 

[cooleddie74]

Higher participation rates might not always guarantee better results...this much is very true. But higher participation rates make for a more informed and educated electorate and make a country a more hands-on democracy. When more people show up to the party it's almost always more fun and more successful. And democracy isn't a spectator sport...it's a participatory endeavor. Millions of men and women have died or been maimed in war at least in part to defend the basic rights of their fellow human beings to have their voices heard and paid attention to.

 

[28VulcansLater]

I think it is important that in a democracy that every voice is heard. If people are making their decision on who to vote for out of superficial reasons or ignorance that is still an accurate reflection of the mindset of that particular electorate and is no less valid than someone making an “informed” vote. Anyway, how on earth can you check the reasoning behind a vote without submitting some kind of a questionnaire or essay with your ballot paper? It’s absurd.

 

[Gov Kodos]

Higher participation rates might not always guarantee better results...this much is very true. But higher participation rates make for a more informed and educated electorate and make a country a more hands-on democracy. When more people show up to the party it's almost always more fun and more successful. And democracy isn't a spectator sport...it's a participatory endeavor. Millions of men and women have died or been maimed in war at least in part to defend the basic rights of their fellow human beings to have their voices heard and paid attention to.

Also, low turnouts, are most likely to be represented by those most partisan and committed to the candidates and issues of the election cycle and not reflect the broader political spectrum available in a country.

 

[cooleddie74]

Too true. When the only people showing up at the polls are the most devoted and partisan members of your voting base, then where's the healthy democracy in all of that? It's letting a minority of a plurality make the decisions for the majority and that is hardly fair or proper, but it's what happens sometimes when a Congressional, gubernatorial or mayoral race garners less than fifty percent turnout of registered voters...sometimes much less. In some instances you have just one-fifth or one-quarter of the entire population going to the voting booth to make decisions for the whole of that city, state or Congressional district, and the winning margin for one side or the other might be just a handful of votes out of that 20-25% of the total population. That's like a city of a million people having a grand total of 200-250,000 people show up for an important mayoral race and the winner gets just 100,001 or 125,001 votes. Just one-eighth or one-tenth of the entire population of that city gets to determine the future of that city for the next four years. 10 - 12.5% That is both sad and---in the long run in a democracy that purports to be healthy and vibrant---unacceptable.

 

[Yevetha]

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

Some people are just not interested in politics, the news are good if you can find the good journalists who care about their stuff instead of just pushing an agenda.

So, does this mean that you support efforts at voter suppression, in case those efforts weed out people who "are just not interested in politics"? This is a "yes" or "no" question, by the way.

I dont support any kind of voter supressiojn, i just prefer low information voters not to vote.
Vulcanslater:

I think it is important that in a democracy that every voice is heard.

Anybody can write for his congressman.

Also, low turnouts, are most likely to be represented by those most partisan and committed to the candidates and issues of the election cycle and not reflect the broader political spectrum available in a country.

Low voter turnout also would mean that Ralph Nader or Gary Johnson would have a better chance because those who play close attention to the election would vote.

 

[28VulcansLater]

I think it is important that in a democracy that every voice is heard.

Anybody can write for his congressman.

But they just shouldn't be able to vote for them because someone deems them to be too thick?

 

[Gov Kodos]

I think it is important that in a democracy that every voice is heard.

Anybody can write for his congressman.

But they just shouldn't be able to vote for them because someone deems them to be too thick?

Only the better someones, of course.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

I think it is important that in a democracy that every voice is heard. If people are making their decision on who to vote for out of superficial reasons or ignorance that is still an accurate reflection of the mindset of that particular electorate and is no less valid than someone making an “informed” vote. Anyway, how on earth can you check the reasoning behind a vote without submitting some kind of a questionnaire or essay with your ballot paper? It’s absurd.

Well said.

 

[Gov Kodos]

I think it is important that in a democracy that every voice is heard. If people are making their decision on who to vote for out of superficial reasons or ignorance that is still an accurate reflection of the mindset of that particular electorate and is no less valid than someone making an “informed” vote. Anyway, how on earth can you check the reasoning behind a vote without submitting some kind of a questionnaire or essay with your ballot paper? It’s absurd.

Well said.

Indeed, the question of what constitutes informed is very problematic. I may have little concern for the Kardashians, reality TV, and pop music, none the less, someone who cares for little else is no less entitled to vote unless one wants to impose a class structure on the democratic process. If we do start demanding a structure to voting, I demand a Kim Kardashian class of boobies for holding office.

 

[Misfit Toy]

Yevetha - do you live in or are you a citizen of the United States?

 

[Gov Kodos]

Yevetha - do you live in or are you a citizen of the United States?

Well, going by his question http://www.trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=6096304&postcount=52 the answer is here http://www.trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=6096355&postcount=53 now the question is, why the obsession with the US political process?

 

[MacLeod]

Too true. When the only people showing up at the polls are the most devoted and partisan members of your voting base, then where's the healthy democracy in all of that? It's letting a minority of a plurality make the decisions for the majority and that is hardly fair or proper, but it's what happens sometimes when a Congressional, gubernatorial or mayoral race garners less than fifty percent turnout of registered voters...sometimes much less. In some instances you have just one-fifth or one-quarter of the entire population going to the voting booth to make decisions for the whole of that city, state or Congressional district, and the winning margin for one side or the other might be just a handful of votes out of that 20-25% of the total population. That's like a city of a million people having a grand total of 200-250,000 people show up for an important mayoral race and the winner gets just 100,001 or 125,001 votes. Just one-eighth or one-tenth of the entire population of that city gets to determine the future of that city for the next four years. 10 - 12.5% That is both sad and---in the long run in a democracy that purports to be healthy and vibrant---unacceptable.

I don't see an issue with this. In many democratic countries people have the choice whether to vote or not.

Both Politicans and the electorate have a roll in increasing turnout. The electorate has to care about the issues at hand and the politicans have to make the electorate care about the issues. (amongest other points)

Unfortunatly political scandels etc.. can cause a loss of voter confidence which can in turn lead to lower turnout.

 

[Roger Wilco]

Anyway, how on earth can you check the reasoning behind a vote without submitting some kind of a questionnaire or essay with your ballot paper? It’s absurd.

Easy. If you vote differently from Yevetha , you're dumb and/or uninformed.

 

[cooleddie74]

The fewer people voting leads to the quality of leaders getting better? I don't know what Bizzaro world that "logic" comes from but it's not only stupid, it's dangerous. Rule by an elite chosen by a small minority is just a few steps away from not being able to chose your ruling elite at all.

 

[Gov Kodos]

The fewer people voting leads to the quality of leaders getting better? I don't know what Bizzaro world that "logic" comes from but it's not only stupid, it's dangerous. Rule by an elite chosen by a small minority is just a few steps away from not being able to chose your ruling elite at all.

All the better, for when I vote myself Supreme Leader of the Revolution, you eddie may have your choice of anything I allow. Everything will be much better when there is a minimal vote of one, after all.