Voting and Political Participation

In western societies, the turnout for elections have been dropping. In some places, e.g. Britain, turnout in general elections have dropped from nearly 77% in the early 90s, to 67% in 2010.

Other states are seeing a similar pattern of decline, although their turnout statistics are rather high (above 70%).

In the US, turnout can fall as low as 50-60%.

So, this leads to an erosion of the mandate - that is, political parties have the backing of the populace to carry out their electoral wishes.

This can lead to ridiculous situations where a party (especially in FPTP systems) can muster less than 40% of the overall populace's vote, and still be in power - comfortably.

Indeed, the decline in turnout has lead to an increase in other forms of political participation, e.g. protesting, unionisation, joining a pressure group, boycott of goods.

Indeed, while the Blair government complained about political apathy in the 2001 elections, there were throngs of people protesting against his government's intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan, in probably an extreme case of irony.

So, should modern politics focus on the ways to increase voting participation, or should they focus more on the 'active' ways of participation?

The only way things will get better as far as voter turnout is concerned is either through legal intervention requiring you to vote, or people getting the cold shower that is things turning to shit and then realizing it's their fault for not speaking out.(They won't think it's their fault, even though it is, they'll just figure it's time for them to clean up the mess that all the people who've been voting in years past have made)

While good men do nothing blah blah blah.

...

Edited by fanty on Sep 28th 2019 at 2:20:14 PM

Uh... but... if you don't vote to change the system by increments...

What do you gain by not voting? The system may be corrupt, but not so much so that volting is useless. And that system still effects you, so why not take every possible step to influence said system as well? Generally, not voting favours the existing corrupting forces, meaning that by not voting, you're doing what they want you to do.

Not completely corrupt. I don't have much faith in, say, presidential elections doing much.

But I do however have faith in my local representative. He's done a lot for our community, and I'm sad to see him go(he isn't running for re-election this year)

Your district congressman is the most important vote you can ever cast. Not big enough to be vaulted with corruption most of the time, but not so small that they can't make a huge difference in your life.

Hell, my base had a bunch of shitty old junkheap C-130U models.(Short bus cargo planes that were old as hell)

He fought for years(since the 90's) to get our unit new planes, and after fighting long enough, we got over 10 shiny new never before owned C-130J's, the newest and most powerful model of the plane. He came through for us and helped us get rid of our rustbucket aircraft.

Then again we have a very simple economic situation in my county. We've got like 5 really major employers, and then a service industry built around the population, as well as a large section of Los Angeles commuters who live in the county and have good jobs.

Major employers being: Department of Defense Am Gen(the place where the zombie apocalypse will start? It'll be 15 miles away from me, and my friend is a lab tech there. It's the largest genetic engineering company in the US and their HQ is here.) Harbor Freight Tools Haas Automation The Port: Longshoremen, and tons of imports. We're one of the main distribution center for cars coming in from Japan. BMW: Testing factory here. Cars assembled in Japan get shipped here and then tested to make sure they are ready to be sold. Porn: Simi Valley is second only to the San Fernando valley itself when it comes to the porn industry in california.

Our representative keeps busy providing incentives that let these companies grow and provide more jobs.

edited 22nd May '12 10:52:56 AM by Barkey

I disapprove of any democratic system that would allow me and people like me to vote.

If you want any of my avatars, just Pm me I'd truly appreciate any avatar of a reptile sleeping in a Nice Hat Read Elmer Kelton books

What kind of people are you, ATC?

Anyway, anyone who says they don't vote because of corruption and lives in a Western country is full of crap as far as I'm concerned. We're not a former Soviet or currently communist nation, and we're not ruled by some despot in control of the entire military. If you don't vote, you're basically saying you don't actually give a shit. Not voting is not an actual statement of anything in this day and age. In fact, you're pretty much allowing whatever you perceive to be a problem to continue.

Yeah if you have an issue with corruption that go and vote but either vote for a protect candidate (Monster Raving Looney Party being my favourite) or spoil your ballot in such a way as to indicate that it is a protest vote (maybe by adding a "None of the above" box and ticking it). But for god’s sake go out and vote. If nothing else eye not voting you are serenading the right to complain about how the government is run, does anyone really want to give that right up?

"And the Bunny nails it!" ~ Gabrael "If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we." ~ Cyran

Hasn't the thought of the people are gradually rejecting the act of voting-based participation crossed your minds?

Democracy through voting sucks. They are failing. Ever since 2003 we are seeing more and more politicians worldwide turning up red. Bribery, incompetency, sex scandals, etc. The people are not going to turnout for systems they don't trust. Rather than fix for greater turnouts, how about look at the mirror a little and change the system?

edited 22nd May '12 3:46:55 PM by Cassie

What profit is it to a man, when he gains his money, but loses his internet? Anonymous 16:26 I believe...

What do you suggest as an alternative?

The problem is that every district is like this. With rare exceptions, we tend to hate everyone's politicians except our own.

A good deal of the problem here is that the populace can't be arsed to research stuff out for themselves. Like, I'm voting to keep my senators in place because I bothered to look at their voting history, but I'm in a bit of a minority on that and I get the distinct impression they got there in the first place on equal parts good presentation and dumb luck. People around here aren't any less susceptible to the kind of blind adherence to party lines than anyone else.

That has more to do with how campaigns are funded. The only people with enough money to get their names out there and stand a chance in a statewide/nationwide campaign are the ones who already either have a huge stake in business (usually obtained through ruthlessness in the first place) or have been sponsored by companies that they're already genuflecting to. Local elections aren't nearly as bad about that — the county stuff a couple weeks ago was mostly good people.

edited 22nd May '12 4:25:08 PM by Pykrete

I'd love some campaign finance reform. I happen to like the idea of restricting presidential candidates to X dollars (where X is something like $120 million at a guess, but would be some arbitrarily large value deemed sufficient for campaigning across the country for the Presidency) adjusted for inflation, to be provided for candidates able to get on the ballot in enough states to get at least 270 electoral votes (or whatever a majority currently is if the size of the Electoral College ever grows, naturally), with no other entities allowed to run political advertisements and all unspent campaign money must be returned after the election.

And as for liking/knowing one's current representatives, well, I most certainly will not be voting for my House incumbent (because Lee Terry is a dickhead), and the Republicans put forward a bunch of nutjobs for Senate (Bruning, Stenberg, and the winner, Fischer all suck).

edited 22nd May '12 4:45:53 PM by Balmung

I feel I should point out that Australia has had compulsory voting since just after WWI and though enforcement of it is extremely lax we still have voter turnouts well over 90%. Also we're hardly a tyrannical dictatorship.

Speaking as an outside observer two of the things I find most ridiculous about the US politics are

1)Your campaign to election cycle is crazy skewed, especially in a presidential election year. Its a frakkin' year long election cycle. I get frustrated by after a six week cycle. It wouldn't surprise me if it was less a case of voter apathy as political burnout.

2) You vote for everything. Seriously at worst I vote for (federal) senate representation, federal local member, state local member, local councilor and a mayor in a single year, at that's only when the state and federal election cycles (four and three years respectively) match up. But it seems like every damn public office in the US has to be elected.

Actually there's several issues with protest votes. Legally, campaign workers are required to do register and count those votes. But, upon talking to them, I found out they do no such thing because either they don't care or that's the de facto policy (they just throw them out). So actually your protest vote is totally ignored even though that's completely illegal.

Additionally, when the whole system is corrupt, while voting is still better than not voting, it's effort spent for little to no gain. The incremental benefit is nearly worthless. It's the same reason why people let things slide in a dictatorship until it boils over, then you put on a bread hat and stand in Tahrir Square as loyalist police officers gun you down.

The problem, to me, is the system. It's not engaging enough, it's not worthwhile enough. The vote is just a piece of paper. It's everything around that piece of paper that makes it matter.

All the people who don't vote aren't offering up any actual solutions themselves. They are all cowards who are essentially saying "Someone else fix the problem, then I'll vote."

Quit waiting on someone else to change the world and contribute yourselves, you'll die of old age if you just sit around like sheep.

In my own experience, whenever people talk about not voting, they tend to come across as Know-Nothing-Know-It-Alls since they tend to know next to nothing about politics yet feel the need to say that anyone who does vote is wasting their time. Far as I'm concerned, if you don't vote you're basically bending over to get fucked over by the people in charge.

edited 22nd May '12 11:06:42 PM by rmctagg09

Eating a Vanilluxe will give you frostbite.

Cassie, voting is the only thing that makes Democracy as a system work AT ALL. That's pretty much what makes democracy; the ability of every citizen to vote and thus have a say in the proceedings. Not voting is basically withdrawing your voice. And I recognize that people have a right to do that. I just think it's a piss poor decision that essentially changes absolutely nothing. Particularly in Western countries.

That said, a candidate that does what you want can't exactly come out in an environment that doesn't support them. Politicians that actually want to do things need to have support from somewhere to do it. There are other ways to participate in democracy, and voting is just one of them. If you want to fix the problem, you're going to have to do things other than "not vote". Not voting is just fucking ridiculous.

Compared to what you seem to have, especially in the US but other places too, I have it easy when it comes to voting. My ballot boxes are at a walking distance (500m for national parliament and 100m to presidential), with lines of 10-30 people at the time I've been to vote. Voting turnouts in the most recent elections were 72,7 for the presidential and 70,5 for the national parliament election. We also have advance voting, no excuse required. Having porportional representation my vote is also more likely to count.

Now, if we had FPTP and neither of the major candidates were good enough... I'd vote for someone I want, even if s/he has no chance of winning. I'll show in the stats, and eventually more people might be convinced there's a viable third option. But I must say, I'm loving our porportional reprsentation.

Here they are supposed to count the blank votes and discard other protest votes (the most popular ones being Donald Duck and Vagina). That's what's supposed to happen, I don't know what actually does.

edited 23rd May '12 5:03:59 AM by Qeise

Laws are made to be broken. You're next, thermodynamics.

I don't expect you to understand what context my words were, since apparently my country's voting is powerless to change anything. If voting could solve everything, Egypt wouldn't be how it is today, and ditto for Greece and Japan. Votes are but papers. Your name being cast in doesn't mean the higher ups give a shit. When we're in a world where only a relative few control the rights of masses, how can you know for sure your votes really do count?

Take my country Malaysia for example. Always playing the tricks like making the last months before election 'exercise period' where all the hard work is done. Names of deceased people show up as voters which somehow can't be sued. How can you fight power with power? Voting isn't a dependable power. Like I said, it's just paper

edited 23rd May '12 5:31:02 AM by Cassie

What profit is it to a man, when he gains his money, but loses his internet? Anonymous 16:26 I believe...

I want your frickin' electoral system. I want STV! I want STV!

Voting is all well and good, but it is only the beginning of civic responsibility. Putting an X next to someone's name every four years isn't going to get the necessary change to happen, but if you can't even do that much then you're screwed.

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.

I am going to repeat what I said in another topic the China is too big for Democracy one

4 years as a term is too short. One elected person can do as much damage to the country as possible and if lucky, may walk away unscathed and unelected, without being deposed.

But to add to that point, 4 years is very sufficient in corrupting a whole governmental structure, via human relations. Some had even longer due to consecutive runs under same party members

What profit is it to a man, when he gains his money, but loses his internet? Anonymous 16:26 I believe...

Not much need to depose someone whose power is limited to four or eight years, Cassie. Deposing is for lifetime positions. And I don't see anyone in America agitating to increase the number of years they can be in office, not since people got so freaked out by FDR getting voted in four times that they actually put a legal limit on how often they could run here. (I think most people are neutral on it as in itself that particular law doesn't seem to be a problem in our system.)

Anyway; democracy can be corrupted. Anything that involves humans can be corrupted. That in itself doesn't make democracy or voting pointless. In fact, if you're not willing to vote you're probably not willing to do any of the harder stuff as far as I can see. Whether or not you vote is the basic litmus test for how willing you are to participate in government. You can't change a system you don't participate in. (As far as I'm concerned, all that protesting and stuff? That's participating in the system, even if it's protesting against the way things are. When it comes to changing how things are done I don't really think there is such a thing as "outside the system". )

Four years is too short to really see the effects of what the representatives are doing, and limits the time people have to work on bigger projects. Doesn't really encourage long term thinking. You have to balance with the term being short enough to kick incompetent or corrupt people out before they can do too much damage, and the term being long enough to actually do something. Don't know what the optimum length would be though.

edited 23rd May '12 3:44:07 PM by Qeise

Laws are made to be broken. You're next, thermodynamics.