Anything you "allow" had better include the things I like, or else there will be a Counterrevolution led by the Burger King. And if you think a Guy Fawkes mask is profoundly creepy and intimidating, you haven't seen ANYTHING yet.
Lower voter turnout=better outcomes?
- Thread starter Yevetha
- Start date
Anything you "allow" had better include the things I like, or else there will be a Counterrevolution led by the Burger King. And if you think a Guy Fawkes mask is profoundly creepy and intimidating, you haven't seen ANYTHING yet.
Suppose we give you Jewel Staite and Hawaii? (Well, the Big Island, I am keeping the rest, being a greedy fuck and all plus Tia Carerre. I will have Tia.)
Awesome Possum will put up quite the fight over that decision, but oh well. He'll get used to it. Toss in some of the West Indies and my own aircraft carrier and it's a deal.
I'll give you the whole West Indies so long as I get Diego Garcia, the East Indies and Aishwarya Rai . The Aircraft Carrier group comes with the package.
Amazingly enough, you thought wrong.
We're a Constitutional Federal Republic. That's our form of government. We elect the people in said form of government through the democratic process.
And the electoral college has nothing to with republicanism or democracy. The founders didn't want a couple hundred thousand illiterate dirt farmers to pick the leader of country.
At this point I would mention the 12 Amendment, but I feel it would be lost on you.
Also, since the winner of the state's popular vote wins that state's electoral college, it's democratic...just not accurate. Bush v Gore and Harrison v Cleveland aside, the winner still wins.
^The only problem with the electoral college system when it comes to electing the US President is that they could win the electoral college system yet loss the popular vote.
So in a case where the loser in a US Presidential election wins the popular vote but loses the electoral college vote. In essence the minority win over the majority. Hardly democratic.
But as I'm not an American that is for the Americans to decide if it's democratic or not. Perhaps in the past the electoral college sysem had it's advantages but is that the case today?
So in a case where the loser in a US Presidential election wins the popular vote but loses the electoral college vote. In essence the minority win over the majority. Hardly democratic.
But as I'm not an American that is for the Americans to decide if it's democratic or not. Perhaps in the past the electoral college sysem had it's advantages but is that the case today?
Yevetha
Commodore
In case they choose not to vote they can still make their voices heard that way.
Macleopd posted:
I would prefer to have all the scandals we can find out about, voter turnout be dammed.
Eddie posted:
Did the opposie preve to be true?
Thats how the legislative branch is set up and always had been.
The US has pretty damn low turnout right now. How would lessening it make things better?
That’s a slightly different argument to the one that is being inferred by this thread. I agree that folk have the right to not vote if they so choose (which I personally think is shameful but that is their prerogative). The representative should treat everyone in their constituency equally, regardless of whether they voted for him/her or not. But it seems to be implied that only political anoraks are capable of choosing the right persons to elected office. Because their “experts”?
I don’t mind how people choose who to vote for just as long as they make the effort to do it. Whether is you really know the ins and outs of the policies of the party or whether simply you like the personality of the candidate and you think they will serve you well. It’s up to the politicians to convince us and make themselves attractive prospects.
The original question asks could low voter turnout benefit democracy? I think the answer is no because being elected by say 40% of the 30% of the people who turn up cannot give legitimacy to the politicians to make decisions that affect everyone.
Yevetha
Commodore
Only 10% of voters look at the issues. Issue based voting would lead to greater voter satisfaction. Switzerlan does pretty well despite its low turnout.
The US has pretty damn low turnout right now. How would lessening it make things better?
The pres can be aproved by nonvoters too.
But if they don’t vote (or are not allowed to vote) they will have no opportunity to kick them out if they do not approve. In that regard I find opinion polls/approval ratings absolutely worthless.
I agree but I would like to add that being a democrat requires more than making an X every few months or years.
Nixon, a staunch antiliberal, has been a very liberal president. Obama himself said once that if somebody wants him to do something he should not tell him but "make [him] do it". It needs grassroots movements, pressure from the streets to get something done. That's the key question, not voting the right persons into office.
I think the question needs to be asked, "What, exactly, makes one an uninformed voter?" I ask because I often hear the term used to refer to someone who votes contrary to the person using the term. This is based on the idea that someone who does not vote the same as you must be less educated. And it's a charge I've seen used by members of both political parties.
Next question, how, then, do you determine if someone is well informed on the issues? And, can you do so in a non-partisan way? Would the person have to present both sides of the argument for you to agree that they were well enough informed? For example, would someone have to go to the polls able to explain what the arguments for and against "Obamacare" are? Would they then have to explain the arguments between Pro-Life and Pro-Choice? Would you have to prove you watched Fox News AND MSNBC AND CNN equally?
There is no fair way to determine if someone is properly informed on the issues without opening yourself up to accusations of bias.
Next question, how, then, do you determine if someone is well informed on the issues? And, can you do so in a non-partisan way? Would the person have to present both sides of the argument for you to agree that they were well enough informed? For example, would someone have to go to the polls able to explain what the arguments for and against "Obamacare" are? Would they then have to explain the arguments between Pro-Life and Pro-Choice? Would you have to prove you watched Fox News AND MSNBC AND CNN equally?
There is no fair way to determine if someone is properly informed on the issues without opening yourself up to accusations of bias.
If you wanna be informed watching television is anything but helpful. Even the majority of papers nowadays is basically unreadable. So that's the first problem, it is not easy and actually requires effort to find decent publications.
The second problem is ideological. Even people who are interested in politics are rarely informed respectively if they are all information is automatically perceived through the lenses of one's ideology. There is no God's eye view in politics.
So let's be frank, most people vote based on ideological and not factual reasons. You find a political home, you stay there.
I feel e.g. that my basic political position corresponds with party X but due to what happens at the moment economically, tight monetary policy and austerity during the worsts financial crisis since the 30s, I gotta for the first time in my life seriously check out what party Y says it'd do and what it might actually do as it might be a better option. This is friggin' terrifying!
So I think there more important question would be, are you open to be "politically homeless" and constantly challenge your own political position?
The second problem is ideological. Even people who are interested in politics are rarely informed respectively if they are all information is automatically perceived through the lenses of one's ideology. There is no God's eye view in politics.
So let's be frank, most people vote based on ideological and not factual reasons. You find a political home, you stay there.
I feel e.g. that my basic political position corresponds with party X but due to what happens at the moment economically, tight monetary policy and austerity during the worsts financial crisis since the 30s, I gotta for the first time in my life seriously check out what party Y says it'd do and what it might actually do as it might be a better option. This is friggin' terrifying!
So I think there more important question would be, are you open to be "politically homeless" and constantly challenge your own political position?
Yes, just like how all the disenfranchised black voters in the South were satisfied before passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Who determines what an informed voter is? What kind of test would be used to gauge their capability to vote? This is a recipe for corruption and unjust disenfranchisement of voters.
So, the possibility of bad decisions means fewer people should vote? That's damn cynical as well as ridiculous. The lower the turnout the greater the chance the status quo and entrenched power structure remain firmly in place and the less motivation leaders have to change things. You say you come from Romania...your people couldn't even vote at all until the democratic revolution that began in 1989. Would you tell the men and women who fought so hard for electoral democracy in your country that the fewer people voting the better? If so, I seriously doubt many of them would agree with you. The people of Eastern Europe seem to have more of a love and appreciation for the ballot than that after so many decades of dictatorship and Soviet control.
Call it what you will, but your nation is better off as a result of the fall of communism and tyranny. That said, I'm sure most of your nation's people are very appreciative for the opportunity to vote for their own leaders and have a hand in determining the nation's future, as imperfect and corrupt as things can sometimes be.
Similar threads
