15% of youth voted in Mass. vs 47% in 2008 elections

[weemadando]

I think MoO, you are vastly underestimating the laziness, rather than apathy of your countrymen.

How many people in America don't vote simply because they simply can't be bothered, rather than being uncaring, ignorant or ill-informed.

Why did only 15% of the youth vote in the MA elections vs the 47% at the prior one? Not because there suddenly were tens of thousands less "youth" or anything like that. It's because they didn't show up at the ballot box. Maybe it's because there wasn't an exceptional candidate to draw them in like with Obama, but the fact is that you've had a massive fall off in voter numbers and your reasoning falls apart, because clearly these people have made an effort to vote before and chose not to get off their arses this time.

[Formless]

Could someone explain something to me. If you don't want to vote, why register as a voter? Is jury duty just that fun?

[Master of Ossus]

I think MoO, you are vastly underestimating the laziness, rather than apathy of your countrymen.

How many people in America don't vote simply because they simply can't be bothered, rather than being uncaring, ignorant or ill-informed.

Why did only 15% of the youth vote in the MA elections vs the 47% at the prior one? Not because there suddenly were tens of thousands less "youth" or anything like that. It's because they didn't show up at the ballot box. Maybe it's because there wasn't an exceptional candidate to draw them in like with Obama, but the fact is that you've had a massive fall off in voter numbers and your reasoning falls apart, because clearly these people have made an effort to vote before and chose not to get off their arses this time.

Same difference. If the person's too lazy to vote, it still indicates that they're not terribly interested in the outcome. I mean, in general, laziness and apathy are not dissimilar: am I not taking ballroom dance lessons, right now, because I'm too lazy or because I don't care? Obviously I feel as if I have more important things to do, even if I recognize on some intellectual level that ballroom dancing might help me improve myself, or whatever, but the same thing can be said about voters who don't vote. If they don't care enough to go through an entirely trivial process, why is it socially important that they participate?

But, no, my argument certainly doesn't fall apart because there's been a drop in some subset of voter turnout. Voters don't have to "care" equally about all elections, just as they don't have to care equally about all issues. In fact, I'm having trouble figuring out how you think this even damages my argument. If someone selectively votes based on when their level of caring rises above some non-zero level, then why is it better if society tells them they have to vote all the time, even when their level of caring is zero? In essence, the voters are telling you when they think it's important. Note that with actual voters I'm not saying that people who don't show up don't care at all. I'm saying that it's a signal that they don't care as much about the outcome of the vote as people who cast ballots.

[Mayabird]

It's not just laziness. Voting in large sections of the country are based on systems that were intentionally designed with the goal of fucking over as many people as possible. Stick the voting booths in out of the way places, make them hard to use, figure out ways to not hand out voter guides to the candidates, make people jump through hoops and do interpretive dances to get in, etc etc.

Washington state and Oregon typically have higher voter rates because they don't have Jim Crow carry-over crap and they make it simple and easy. I'll have to defer to Uraniun235 on Oregon but I did live in Washington for a while. It was very simple. While getting my driver's license in-state, they asked at the end, "Hey, want to be registered to vote?" "Yes." *lady presses button* "Alright, there you go." Then it was all mail-in ballots, simple paper with simple instructions, an inner and outer envelope (so no one can see inside) and we didn't even have to pay postage and they could just be dropped off at ballot boxes. No lines, no having to take off work (and when you get down to it, Election Day should be a damn national holiday), no having to even wear pants, no having to bring three forms of ID or whatever so you can't vote if you forgot something, and and I can look up candidates online at my leisure, including the judges and all those piddly little local races that everybody always forgets about, and there's a paper trail and we get a bar code receipt. No bullshit.

[Master of Ossus]

It's not just laziness. Voting in large sections of the country are based on systems that were intentionally designed with the goal of fucking over as many people as possible. Stick the voting booths in out of the way places, make them hard to use, figure out ways to not hand out voter guides to the candidates, make people jump through hoops and do interpretive dances to get in, etc etc.

I'm not opposed to making it easier to vote. I'm opposed to people being compelled to vote.

Washington state and Oregon typically have higher voter rates because they don't have Jim Crow carry-over crap and they make it simple and easy. I'll have to defer to Uraniun235 on Oregon but I did live in Washington for a while. It was very simple. While getting my driver's license in-state, they asked at the end, "Hey, want to be registered to vote?" "Yes." *lady presses button* "Alright, there you go." Then it was all mail-in ballots, simple paper with simple instructions, an inner and outer envelope (so no one can see inside) and we didn't even have to pay postage and they could just be dropped off at ballot boxes. No lines, no having to take off work (and when you get down to it, Election Day should be a damn national holiday), no having to even wear pants, no having to bring three forms of ID or whatever so you can't vote if you forgot something, and and I can look up candidates online at my leisure, including the judges and all those piddly little local races that everybody always forgets about, and there's a paper trail and we get a bar code receipt. No bullshit.

Yeah, California does all of those things except making it a national holiday (except that we also have the option to use polling places, as well as mail-in ballots). That's really beside the point of the discussion.

[Stark]

That's not a very good response, IMO. How are people not "jointly and equally responsible for decisions made" without mandatory voting, provided that voting is available for the same group of people now? Some people may choose not to exercise their right, just as they can still do so by not casting an actual vote with their ballots in mandatory voting countries, but that doesn't absolve them of the same responsibility that voters bear. Moreover, not "get[ting] stuck at work?" What? America allows for absentee ballots to be cast, and many work places and big businesses allow time off on election day specifically to allow voters to get to the polls (not to mention that, except in service businesses like law firms and hospitals, you can't possibly be stuck at work for the entire length of time that polls are open unless there's a violation of labor laws going on). Moreover, when people complain about having "no realistic role" in the voting process, they're generally referring to the sheer numbers of votes that are cast in typical elections, which make the odds that any one vote will change anything essentially negligible. To the extent that you find that problematic, it would be made worse by a scheme that increased voter response rates.

Sorry, if you think voting being openly optional and culturally devalued is the same as placing as many people as possible in polling stations, you're crazy. People can always not vote; but the difference of attitude (where the decisions are based on the broadest possible base of citizens, as voting is a responsibility enunciated in the citizenship process) means everyone* is actually involved, not just those motivated by lobbyists. Of course every citizen in the US has the same responsibility whether it's exercised or not; I simply agree that your voter turnouts are a bad thing. In theory I don't even care how 'informed' or 'responsible' voters are; if everyone doesn't vote some people are being disenfranchised whether they like it or not. In the US they'd just resort to Yet More Voter Fraud, but I think more of the population voting = better, no matter how much elitists think only smart people should vote.

*of course you have to actually be on the roll, keep details updated, etc. The secret police don't track you down if you don't.

Frankly, the attitude that people have 'no role' in democracy due to scale or voting blocks or retarded electoral colleges simply reflects that your democracy is broken. If people are disenchanted with the franchise, this is not a good reflection on the mandate given to the government by the people.

I don't even know what you're talking about, here. Do you mean the free rides that parties frequently offer to help voters get to polling places? How inconsiderate of them. Also, I'm guessing that your response was a sort of canned answer that was spooned to you by a "compulsory civics" teacher? If so, you may have wanted to think about the lessons you learned in civics more carefully.

In AU it's actually factually illegal to try to tell anyone how to vote (for obvious reasons of integrity, intimidation, etc). However, every political party camp outside polling places and attempt to give voters 'how to vote' cards, which are coincidentally the way xyz party wants you to vote preference-wise. It's technically illegal, but since every party does it nobody wants to crack down on it. Every single time I vote I give those motherfuckers a piece of my mind, because every single person too stupid or ill-informed or 'loyal' who simply votes the way the card says damages democracy.

[Uraniun235]

I'll have to defer to Uraniun235 on Oregon but I did live in Washington for a while. It was very simple. While getting my driver's license in-state, they asked at the end, "Hey, want to be registered to vote?" "Yes." *lady presses button* "Alright, there you go." Then it was all mail-in ballots, simple paper with simple instructions, an inner and outer envelope (so no one can see inside) and we didn't even have to pay postage and they could just be dropped off at ballot boxes. No lines, no having to take off work (and when you get down to it, Election Day should be a damn national holiday), no having to even wear pants, no having to bring three forms of ID or whatever so you can't vote if you forgot something, and and I can look up candidates online at my leisure, including the judges and all those piddly little local races that everybody always forgets about, and there's a paper trail and we get a bar code receipt. No bullshit.

I dunno if DMV does voter registration down here, but the registration form is still very simple and easy to fill out. We don't get a barcode receipt, but we can call the county to ask if they got our ballot. Other than that it's probably about the same.

Yeah, California does all of those things except making it a national holiday (except that we also have the option to use polling places, as well as mail-in ballots).

It takes additional money to man those polling places, you know.

[Master of Ossus]

Sorry, if you think voting being openly optional and culturally devalued is the same as placing as many people as possible in polling stations, you're crazy. People can always not vote; but the difference of attitude (where the decisions are based on the broadest possible base of citizens, as voting is a responsibility enunciated in the citizenship process) means everyone* is actually involved, not just those motivated by lobbyists.

No, because the government makes them do it. I'd much rather have people who care, for one reason or another, show up.

Of course every citizen in the US has the same responsibility whether it's exercised or not; I simply agree that your voter turnouts are a bad thing. In theory I don't even care how 'informed' or 'responsible' voters are; if everyone doesn't vote some people are being disenfranchised whether they like it or not. In the US they'd just resort to Yet More Voter Fraud, but I think more of the population voting = better, no matter how much elitists think only smart people should vote.

*of course you have to actually be on the roll, keep details updated, etc. The secret police don't track you down if you don't.

But surely you'll make allowances for people who don't care one way or the other. I see you have conveniently ignored that entire portion of my argument. What would you do in a democracy where two people felt very strongly one way, and three people were essentially entirely indifferent but if forced to pick would choose the other route? Is it really the socially optimal outcome to go with the three weak votes versus the two strong ones?

Frankly, the attitude that people have 'no role' in democracy due to scale or voting blocks or retarded electoral colleges simply reflects that your democracy is broken. If people are disenchanted with the franchise, this is not a good reflection on the mandate given to the government by the people.

What are you talking about? Can you honestly say that, in Australia, forcing people to vote means that it matters more to them? That's just bullshit, and you know it. With modern numbers in modern countries, the likelihood that any individual voter's participation or non-participation affects the outcome is zero. That's true in both our systems. You can try and gussy that up anyway you want, but that's the reality in both of our systems.

In AU it's actually factually illegal to try to tell anyone how to vote (for obvious reasons of integrity, intimidation, etc). However, every political party camp outside polling places and attempt to give voters 'how to vote' cards, which are coincidentally the way xyz party wants you to vote preference-wise. It's technically illegal, but since every party does it nobody wants to crack down on it. Every single time I vote I give those motherfuckers a piece of my mind, because every single person too stupid or ill-informed or 'loyal' who simply votes the way the card says damages democracy.

I see that Australian political parties went to the "Chicago Cubs" school of election, then, but that sad anecdote does suggest to me that for all of your poetic waxing on the Australian forced voter system there's really still substantial voter apathy (because, let's face it, such practices wouldn't be pervasive in a society in which the voters consistently cared significantly about the outcome). Frankly, it also calls into serious question the low statistics on "non-votes." If it's easier to get cards that vote on every issue than it is to get a card and manually select which issues not to vote on...

[Losonti Tokash]

But surely you'll make allowances for people who don't care one way or the other. I see you have conveniently ignored that entire portion of my argument. What would you do in a democracy where two people felt very strongly one way, and three people were essentially entirely indifferent but if forced to pick would choose the other route? Is it really the socially optimal outcome to go with the three weak votes versus the two strong ones?

If they're as absolutely determined to not have an opinion as you say they are, then you know what will happen once they get into the booth? They'll vote for a fictional character or just submit a blank ballot.

The worst thing I could see coming of this is having to talk politics with my girlfriend and her family. Whoop-de-fucking-doo.

[JointStrikeFighter]

But surely you'll make allowances for people who don't care one way or the other. I see you have conveniently ignored that entire portion of my argument. What would you do in a democracy where two people felt very strongly one way, and three people were essentially entirely indifferent but if forced to pick would choose the other route? Is it really the socially optimal outcome to go with the three weak votes versus the two strong ones?

If they're as absolutely determined to not have an opinion as you say they are, then you know what will happen once they get into the booth? They'll vote for a fictional character or just submit a blank ballot.

The worst thing I could see coming of this is having to talk politics with my girlfriend and her family. Whoop-de-fucking-doo.

And they arent that determined in Australia anyway; people conveniently ignored the fucking 5% informal vote rate.

[bobalot]

But surely you'll make allowances for people who don't care one way or the other. I see you have conveniently ignored that entire portion of my argument. What would you do in a democracy where two people felt very strongly one way, and three people were essentially entirely indifferent but if forced to pick would choose the other route? Is it really the socially optimal outcome to go with the three weak votes versus the two strong ones?

If they're as absolutely determined to not have an opinion as you say they are, then you know what will happen once they get into the booth? They'll vote for a fictional character or just submit a blank ballot.

The worst thing I could see coming of this is having to talk politics with my girlfriend and her family. Whoop-de-fucking-doo.

Losonti Tokash nailed it. Nobody in Australia is forced to vote for anybody. It is compulsory to be apart of the political process. We view it as a responsibility of citizenship. That is all.

[Stark]

No, because the government makes them do it. I'd much rather have people who care, for one reason or another, show up.

Except that doesn't work, obviously. More people voting = better democracy; under this theory it doesn't matter how it's done. Painting it as some kind of oppression is just hilarious.

But surely you'll make allowances for people who don't care one way or the other. I see you have conveniently ignored that entire portion of my argument. What would you do in a democracy where two people felt very strongly one way, and three people were essentially entirely indifferent but if forced to pick would choose the other route? Is it really the socially optimal outcome to go with the three weak votes versus the two strong ones?

Don't care one way or the other, about the government that runs the country and provides all the benefits you recieve as a citizen? Ditch your citizenship. You're told as part of the process that citizens have a responsibility, not just rights, to participate and be heard. Don't like that? Don't be a citizen.

What are you talking about? Can you honestly say that, in Australia, forcing people to vote means that it matters more to them? That's just bullshit, and you know it. With modern numbers in modern countries, the likelihood that any individual voter's participation or non-participation affects the outcome is zero. That's true in both our systems. You can try and gussy that up anyway you want, but that's the reality in both of our systems.

I never said voting matters 'more' to anyone, jackass. I said that more people voting means greater mandate and citizen accountability. Frankly, that you're the sort of person who says individual voters are worthless highlights that you have no belief in democracy at all. Indeed, people like you are probably why the US has such low turnouts; who cares, right? One vote never matters! Except ten million one votes DO matter, and that's how democracy works.

I see that Australian political parties went to the "Chicago Cubs" school of election, then, but that sad anecdote does suggest to me that for all of your poetic waxing on the Australian forced voter system there's really still substantial voter apathy (because, let's face it, such practices wouldn't be pervasive in a society in which the voters consistently cared significantly about the outcome). Frankly, it also calls into serious question the low statistics on "non-votes." If it's easier to get cards that vote on every issue than it is to get a card and manually select which issues not to vote on...

Who gives a fuck about voter apathy? Everyone votes, everyone is responsible, everyone is a part of the process because it's their responsibility as a citizen. Nobody said this makes individual voters better informed or clearer decision-makers or philosopher kings; the Australian public is in general just as fucking stupid and fat as the American public. Turns out in democracy that's how it works? If you don't want poorly informed morons making decisions at the ballot box, you should probably stage a coup. Compulsory voting is in no way trying to fix this inescapable truth.

[Master of Ossus]

No, because the government makes them do it. I'd much rather have people who care, for one reason or another, show up.

Except that doesn't work, obviously.

Only because of how you've defined "democracy."

More people voting = better democracy; under this theory it doesn't matter how it's done.

True, but I disagree with your theory of an ideal democracy.

Painting it as some kind of oppression is just hilarious.

I'm not painting it "as some kind of oppression." I'm suggesting that it systematically leads to less-than-optimal outcomes and policy decisions that do collective harm to society.

Don't care one way or the other, about the government that runs the country and provides all the benefits you recieve as a citizen? Ditch your citizenship. You're told as part of the process that citizens have a responsibility, not just rights, to participate and be heard. Don't like that? Don't be a citizen.

That's an incredibly narrow view on the rights and responsibilities of citizenship, but more importantly you are casting voting as a responsibility instead of a privilege. I see no reason to go along with this characterization.

I never said voting matters 'more' to anyone, jackass. I said that more people voting means greater mandate and citizen accountability.

Prove it. "Greater mandate?" Why? Because you've forced people to show up for something they otherwise wouldn't care about, even though in both systems elected representatives represent the same number of people and are still accountable to them? "Citizen accountability" is increased in your system? By what measure? In what possible sense is someone who actually casts a ballot more accountable than one who has the option but elects not to?

Frankly, that you're the sort of person who says individual voters are worthless highlights that you have no belief in democracy at all.

WHAT? That's absurd. Are you honestly so brainwashed that you think any reasoning individual will go along with your dogmatic arguments?

Indeed, people like you are probably why the US has such low turnouts; who cares, right? One vote never matters! Except ten million one votes DO matter, and that's how democracy works.

Obviously.

We have very different views on the evils that democracy secures us against, though, as well as what "democracy" is. IMO, democracy is meant to ensure only that people have equal opportunity to select individuals who represent them, and that granting everyone within a society equal power to elect those representatives is sufficient to constitute democracy. You require an equality of outcome, however, in that your version of democracy requires every member of society to actually exercise that vote. I don't think that's sensible for a number of reasons, and if given the choice I would certainly pick my version of democracy over yours, but in any case I don't understand how you can claim that my version of democracy is somehow "less democratic" than yours--they are simply different views of what democracy is and differ in their objectives.

Who gives a fuck about voter apathy? Everyone votes, everyone is responsible, everyone is a part of the process because it's their responsibility as a citizen.

So what about the people who DO go to the ballot but still decide not to cast a vote on a particular issue? How are they any more responsible than someone who doesn't go to the polls at all?

Nobody said this makes individual voters better informed or clearer decision-makers or philosopher kings; the Australian public is in general just as fucking stupid and fat as the American public. Turns out in democracy that's how it works? If you don't want poorly informed morons making decisions at the ballot box, you should probably stage a coup. Compulsory voting is in no way trying to fix this inescapable truth.

But compulsory voting is actually detrimental to society in another very important regard, which I have repeatedly hit you over the head with and you haven't even acknowledged (except to say that that's how "democracy" works, as if your conception of democracy is the only possible form of government that can be considered a democracy).

[Master of Ossus]

If they're as absolutely determined to not have an opinion as you say they are, then you know what will happen once they get into the booth? They'll vote for a fictional character or just submit a blank ballot.

The worst thing I could see coming of this is having to talk politics with my girlfriend and her family. Whoop-de-fucking-doo.

The argument doesn't rely on the concept that someone's forced to pick one way or another, but merely points out that just because people have different views of a particular policy shouldn't lead inexorably to the conclusion that they care equally about those views. In my example, if I had said that the three people in my hypothetical five-person society had cared very, very slightly (which, indeed, is the situation I was envisioning--I'm probably guilty of a poor choice of words), and that the other two had very strong reasons to want to go another route, that would likely not alter my conclusion. It still demonstrates that there can be much worse outcomes than your "having to talk politics with [your] girlfriend and her family" because it systematically leads to socially sub-optimal outcomes--a sort of "tyranny of the majority" problem that is mitigated by my model of democracy.

[Stark]

I'm interested in the attitude that voting is a right, and not a responsibility. In my culture it's a responsibility, because it means everyone takes collective responsibility for the management of the country/state/whatever. It's a right as well (obviously, since without the franchise your voice isn't heard) but the responsibility is the important part. Of course, this is clearly an attitude specifically cultivated in our culture to support the compulsory voting requirement. That said, the whole democratic process (from media to platforms to parties to issues) is shaped by this knowledge that everyone and not just 'motivated' people will vote.

I'm not sure how 'lazy people don't vote' is supposed to make democracy 'better'. Sure, only smart or informed people voting would be best from a decision-making perspective, but that's not 'democracy'. If you're going to have the sovereign will of the people (or whatever) then hearing more of the people = better.

[Master of Ossus]

I'm interested in the attitude that voting is a right, and not a responsibility. In my culture it's a responsibility, because it means everyone takes collective responsibility for the management of the country/state/whatever. It's a right as well (obviously, since without the franchise your voice isn't heard) but the responsibility is the important part. Of course, this is clearly an attitude specifically cultivated in our culture to support the compulsory voting requirement. That said, the whole democratic process (from media to platforms to parties to issues) is shaped by this knowledge that everyone and not just 'motivated' people will vote.

I suppose I have difficulty conceptualizing of voting as a responsibility partly because Americans like me do view it as a right, and partly because I don't see the collective interests that are served when people vote but that wouldn't be served if they didn't. Maybe you can help me out here?

To explain my view of voting, though, I guess it might be helpful to analogize to free speech. I view voting as a particular subset of free speech: voting is an outlet that members of society are permitted and that generally can't be taken away. As a member of society, you're free to exercise this as you choose. Other forms of free speech aren't always utilized equally by everyone--everyone has the right to attend protests, write to (or even operate) newspapers, draft petitions, send annoying chain e-mails to their friends, etc., and while not everyone will use those rights to the same degree, or even at all, we still view people as having those rights. Similarly, while not everyone will vote equally often, I still think of everyone as having a right to express themselves through voting, and I guess I don't have a problem with the fact that some people will do it more often than others (so long as everyone is afforded a sufficient chance to express that right). Does that make any sense?

I'm not sure how 'lazy people don't vote' is supposed to make democracy 'better'. Sure, only smart or informed people voting would be best from a decision-making perspective, but that's not 'democracy'. If you're going to have the sovereign will of the people (or whatever) then hearing more of the people = better.

I guess I don't see either that question or conclusion as being resposive. I'm not arguing that only smart or informed or tall or short people should vote, but rather that in society in which voting is not compulsory, the people who feel they have the most at stake in upcoming votes will tend to vote more often than people who perceive themselves to have little at stake. In that sense, it's not really a comment that "you have to be this tall to enter the voting booth," but rather the goal is to use this as a proxy to increase the collective influence of people who have a lot at stake (a position that I obviously find sensible and that you may disagree with--I can understand the ideal of wanting everyone to actually express themselves and be heard equally, even though I actually prefer the other one). I would argue that my society is still "democratic" both because everyone has an equal opportunity to vote and also because the people who do vote are not static--those who have little at issue in this particular election cycle may have a lot at issue in the next, and so there'll be movement into and out of the voter pool with each cycle.

[Stark]

I think I see what you mean; not that the 'best' voters should vote, but that by self-selecting those concerned with the issue you get a decision made by those people, without the noise of the entire population who may not know or care about that issue?

[Master of Ossus]

I think I see what you mean; not that the 'best' voters should vote, but that by self-selecting those concerned with the issue you get a decision made by those people, without the noise of the entire population who may not know or care about that issue?

Right--that is how I view American democracy.

I guess another way to put it is that when I mail in my ballots, I'm not usually thinking, "Okay, I've done my duty to Tom and Julie across the street." I tend to think of it as "Here's my view of what I'd like to see us do." It's more of an exercise of my personal right to expression, rather than something I'm doing for others (although, I do hear other Americans talking about fulfilling their "civic duty" by voting, so I suppose that to at least some extent the ideas are co-extensive or maybe we're just not self-consistent).

[Stark]

That's an interesting reflection, actually; I don't remember ever voting in the kind of smaller, one-issue votes that are often discussed here on the board. There are occasionally referendums on a given issue, but most of the time when Australians vote they're voting not for a single law or proposition, but in an election whether local or federal.

Turns out you can't really compare individual bits of different political systems?

[Master of Ossus]

That's an interesting reflection, actually; I don't remember ever voting in the kind of smaller, one-issue votes that are often discussed here on the board. There are occasionally referendums on a given issue, but most of the time when Australians vote they're voting not for a single law or proposition, but in an election whether local or federal.

Turns out you can't really compare individual bits of different political systems?

Well, usually they have a lot of other crap on the ballots, but when I voted in the Prop 8 election (I live in California), I somehow didn't think that who I had picked to be the county waste and garbage supervisor was quite as important an issue.

[Stark]

That's what occurred to me; I'm not sure the election framework in AU would serve for that kind of direct legislation. It's probably not an accident that the system is designed to elect reps relatively infrequently (something where a large voter base makes sense) instead of relatively frequent narrow-issue elections (where a large voter base would make less sense).