Why are voter turnouts so low? How do we fix it? (1 Viewer)

[LeftyHenry]

Why are voter turnouts in past elections so low and what should we do to fix it. In 2004 for example, roughly 50% of voting population people voted. The country with the highest percentage of voters is Australia but that's because they have mandatory voting laws. Is that a step we should take in order to make our system an accurate representation of the people? Is there another solution?

 

[Ivan The Terrible]

LeftyHenry,

I understand the problem but can't think of anything to fix it. Looks like MTV will just have to work harder.

 

[Kelzie]

We can't. Blame it on the system. If we had a proportional representation government, people would be motivated to go out and vote, because their vote would actually increase their party's representation. However, these single member, plurality districts we have encourage people to stay home. If you already know your party is going to win because of the polls, why should you go out and vote? Likewise, if you know you're going to lose, what's the point? Barring a complete overhaul in our government, it's going to stay this way.

 

[Ivan The Terrible]

Kelzie,

If we had a proportional representation government

Do you mean Mob rule?

 

[Kelzie]

Kelzie,



Do you mean Mob rule?

No, PR. A lot of Europe has a PR system. You vote for the party, not the candidate and every party over a certain cut off percentage (usually around 5%), get's that proportion of seats on the government. So in the US it might look like:

150 Democrats
175 Rebublicans
75 Libertarians
35 Green Party

Then the people's stances are more properly represented. Anyway, the reason this encourages high voter turnout (I believe it was around 90% in Germany's last one) is that the more people that vote for their party, the more power it has. Here it doesn't matter how many people vote for their party, as long as they have more than the other guy.

 

[americanwoman]

Maybe if we get some candidates we believe in it might motivate us to the polls. I know I would if I saw someone's agenda and said ,"wow this is exactly what this country needs!" I would find a way come hell or high water to go vote for them. Now it's like why bother, they both suck, just which one sucks less to get my vote. It's just not very inspiring.

 

[Ivan The Terrible]

Kelzie,

No, PR. A lot of Europe has a PR system. You vote for the party, not the candidate and every party over a certain cut off percentage (usually around 5%), get's that proportion of seats on the government. So in the US it might look like:

150 Democrats
175 Rebublicans
75 Libertarians
35 Green Party

Then the people's stances are more properly represented. Anyway, the reason this encourages high voter turnout (I believe it was around 90% in Germany's last one) is that the more people that vote for their party, the more power it has. Here it doesn't matter how many people vote for their party, as long as they have more than the other guy.

Hrumm I don't like it. I'd like to know something about the guy I'm voting for and also what if I like some Democrate ideas? I don't want to vote for one or the other.

 

[Kelzie]

Kelzie,



Hrumm I don't like it. I'd like to know something about the guy I'm voting for and also what if I like some Democrate ideas? I don't want to vote for one or the other.

Ha, you already vote for one or the other. And it's usually known who is going to be made Prime Minister (PR is often used for parliaments).

As for me, I don't care about who gets voted in. As long as he carries out what I voted him in for, his life is his own.

 

[Iriemon]

No, PR. A lot of Europe has a PR system. You vote for the party, not the candidate and every party over a certain cut off percentage (usually around 5%), get's that proportion of seats on the government. So in the US it might look like:

150 Democrats
175 Rebublicans
75 Libertarians
35 Green Party

Then the people's stances are more properly represented. Anyway, the reason this encourages high voter turnout (I believe it was around 90% in Germany's last one) is that the more people that vote for their party, the more power it has. Here it doesn't matter how many people vote for their party, as long as they have more than the other guy.

This is true and a good point. People ask why we have a two party system and why 3d parties don't go anywhere and it is because of our winner take all system.

In a proportional system like Kelsie outlines, there would be a lot more room for third (and fourth and fifth) parties and differening political perspectives.

 

[LeftyHenry]

No, PR. A lot of Europe has a PR system. You vote for the party, not the candidate and every party over a certain cut off percentage (usually around 5%), get's that proportion of seats on the government. So in the US it might look like:

150 Democrats
175 Rebublicans
75 Libertarians
35 Green Party

Then the people's stances are more properly represented. Anyway, the reason this encourages high voter turnout (I believe it was around 90% in Germany's last one) is that the more people that vote for their party, the more power it has. Here it doesn't matter how many people vote for their party, as long as they have more than the other guy.

Wait so do you know who is going to fill your party seat? Or is it decided among the party?

 

[Kelzie]

Wait so do you know who is going to fill your party seat? Or is it decided among the party?

The party usually decides...but their decision is usually known. No one was surprised that Merkel was made PM after the Christian Democrats sorta won.

 

[Patrickt]

There is a major effort to get more votes out. There's a move now to get prisoners the right to vote. When my father was in a nursing home with Alzheimers, some very nice people came by with ballots already filled out for him to sign. People no longer have to register in advance and in many states they don't have to establish who they are or whether or not they're actually eligible to vote.

I don't see a problem with people who don't care to vote staying home. My favorite was a guy on the radio saying that if he had voted in the last election he would have voted for Kirby. Way to go, Dude.

 

[RightinNYC]

Before you worry about how you're going to raise voter turnout, you have to figure out if you want to. I'm not sure that we do. Does anyone really think that more than 50% of this country pays close enough attention to politics and cares enough to have any idea what is best for them?

One of the key differences between our country and many other countries is that our country rewards effort and punishes sloth to a much greater degree. In Australia with their mandatory voting, people have to vote even if they know nothing. In Europe with PR, the people who don't know much about politics just vote how they're told.

Here, in order to vote you must make (an incredibly minimal) effort. Because of that it weeds out the lazy and stupid and makes the votes of the informed and committed count for more. As a result, the crowd that votes each year is a self-selected crowd that is on average more interested and informed than the population as a whole, which logically must mean that they make better decisions for the country.

I think it's a nice balance between a complete democracy like Athens and an oligarchy of the wise. It's worked for longer than any other constitutional republic, so why mess with it?

 

[LeftyHenry]

Before you worry about how you're going to raise voter turnout, you have to figure out if you want to. I'm not sure that we do. Does anyone really think that more than 50% of this country pays close enough attention to politics and cares enough to have any idea what is best for them?

One of the key differences between our country and many other countries is that our country rewards effort and punishes sloth to a much greater degree. In Australia with their mandatory voting, people have to vote even if they know nothing. In Europe with PR, the people who don't know much about politics just vote how they're told.

Here, in order to vote you must make (an incredibly minimal) effort. Because of that it weeds out the lazy and stupid and makes the votes of the informed and committed count for more. As a result, the crowd that votes each year is a self-selected crowd that is on average more interested and informed than the population as a whole, which logically must mean that they make better decisions for the country.

I think it's a nice balance between a complete democracy like Athens and an oligarchy of the wise. It's worked for longer than any other constitutional republic, so why mess with it?

Well thats a bit of a stretch. I'd say that yes, there may be many who don't care for politics, but I'd say thatmost of that 50% don't vote because they're sick of the politics as it is. Meaning, they hate the duopoly, hate the candidates, and are tired of voting for the lesser of the two evils. Look at Germany as Kelzie pointed out, they have a 90% voter turnout without mandatory voting. So no I don't think that 50% of the population just simply don't care, I think that there is a need for major reform. Also there have been studies which find that many people don't know where to go to register, and some don't don't know where to go to vote.

 

[Patrickt]

"but I'd say thatmost of that 50% don't vote because they're sick of the politics as it is. Meaning, they hate the duopoly, hate the candidates, and are tired of voting for the lesser of the two evils."

I understand that's an opinion but it doesn't match my experience. I know people who don't vote and most of them have never voted. They aren't interested, it's too much trouble, and they simply don't care. Most don't know enough about any of the candidates to be disenchanted. I know some that if Ralph Nader or Ross Perot can't get elected anyway why bother to vote at all or if a communist can't get elected why bother to vote. I know others who are quite young and are busy starting careers, starting families, and so forth and aren't interested.

One party was sure that when the voting age was lowered to eighteen they would be swept into perpetual power. Didn't happen. So now, it's getting people in prisons voting and getting the crack addicts to turn out in force.

I would like to see unnecessary impediments to voting removed, like moving election day to a Sunday and allowing people to register for a precinct near where they work, but then I think we should not beg people to vote. If they're not interested, I don't particularly want them voting.

 

[Harshaw]

What would be different if we had 100% turnout, in terms of election results? I doubt very much would be different at all. I'm sure everyone would like to think that their "side" would fare better, but that's wishful thinking no matter who's thinking it.

If you have 120 million people of every possible demographic in every geographical area, statistically speaking, that's as representative a sample as you could ever want. (Heck, polls are usually pretty accurate based on only 1,000 people.) Chances are overwhelming that elections would turn out the same, only with a higher number of total votes.

But in order to get more people to vote, I'd say that mandatory voting is the only way. I don't necessarily have a problem with it, but at the same time, no one's convinced it me it ought to be done, either.

 

[Stinger]

Well thats a bit of a stretch. I'd say that yes, there may be many who don't care for politics, but I'd say thatmost of that 50% don't vote because they're sick of the politics as it is.

If they cared enough to be sick about it they'd care enough to vote. Personally if someone doesn't have the interest or motivation to go out and vote then I prefer they don't.

Look at Germany as Kelzie pointed out, they have a 90% voter turnout without mandatory voting. So no I don't think that 50% of the population just simply don't care, I think that there is a need for major reform.

Just because you've been losing lately. Our founding fathers did a very good job of setting it up, if we need to do anything we need to move back to what they set up as far as the way Senators are elected, by the state legislatures.

 

[talloulou]

I think voter turnout is low due to apathy and feeling impotent.

 

[MarineCorpsCandidate]

We can't. Blame it on the system.

I wouldn't blame it on the system at all. We should blame ourselves. It is up to us as individuals to vote and to make changes we feel is necessary. I think people don't go out to vote because they have a bad attitude. People should be more positive, even when things don't always go their way or change doesn't immediately happen like they want it to. They focus and dwell on the negative rather than focusing on the positive and what the future could be.

 

[RightinNYC]

Well thats a bit of a stretch. I'd say that yes, there may be many who don't care for politics, but I'd say thatmost of that 50% don't vote because they're sick of the politics as it is. Meaning, they hate the duopoly, hate the candidates, and are tired of voting for the lesser of the two evils. Look at Germany as Kelzie pointed out, they have a 90% voter turnout without mandatory voting. So no I don't think that 50% of the population just simply don't care, I think that there is a need for major reform. Also there have been studies which find that many people don't know where to go to register, and some don't don't know where to go to vote.

The turnout statistics in many other countries are drastically skewed. Part of the reason why the US has lower voter turnout is because it's so incredibly easy to register here. In the US, something near 95% of eligible voters are registered to vote because of Motor Voter legislation. Then, around 50% of that 95% votes, which means that around 47.5% of the eligible voters in the country actually vote. In countries like Germany, it is much more difficult to register, so say that perhaps only 70% of the eligible population is registered to vote. Then, even if you get 80 or 90% of that, it's still only around 60% of the eligible voters. Not that much more than the US.

Secondly, what evidence do you have that voter disgust is the reason for not voting? Many people might say that, but I would wager that a larger part of it is because it doesnt really make that much difference. Because of the US system of checks and balances, things don't change too drastically no matter who is voted in. In countries like Venezuela, Mexico, or Germany, who wins the election might determine whether some people eat or not. In countries like that, why are you surprised that more people vote. I don't see that as necessarily a negative. If we as a country have gotten to the point where near 50% of the population says that they're content enough with things the way they are and are confident enough in our nation that they think they will survive no matter who is in office, I would see that as a positive.

And I'm sorry, if someone doesn't know where to vote or how to register, they're retarded. I work as a poll clerk, and it is SO EASY in this country. If you get a lisence, you are asked to register to vote. Every single registered voter is sent a card before the elections telling you who's running, when the election is, and where to go. Once you get there, there are people to show you exactly what to do. If you can't figure it out, you're not trying.

 

[RightinNYC]

Just because you've been losing lately. Our founding fathers did a very good job of setting it up, if we need to do anything we need to move back to what they set up as far as the way Senators are elected, by the state legislatures.

Exactly. .

 

[Harshaw]

No disrespect, but why don't we just hope that the world will turn into Candyland and we'll all dance together in the gumdrop fields.

You can hold individuals accountable for their actions, but you cannot hold huge masses responsible. Our turnout is lower than other nations, and this is a product of our system, including our culture and government. We can't say "just go vote" when people know that they have absolutely no influence in what's gonna happen. You live in a district that's 90% republican and 5% independent, is there a point in voting in house election? No, and that's a systemic problem, that we set people up that, just by their not terrible standing with one particular group, it becomes practically impossible to hold them accountable for anything.

Now I don't think low voter turnout is in and of itself the problem. Milton Friedman said something in an interview (it's about the defecit, but the idea's the same). Never mind, couldn't find my copy. Anywho, the idea is this, a defecit is not in and of itself a problem, but it depends on the source of the defecit. If a defecit is primarily because of decreased taxes, that does not hurt the nation, but if the defecit is because of increased spending, it is. The same idea goes here. If voter turnout is low because the people who have not studied thoroughly enough to make informed, intelligent decisions, that's not a bad thing. Now if instead it's because large amounts of people have realized that, due to features of the system, voting is futile, that's a ****in problem.

Dude, just because elections don't turn out the way you want, it doesn't mean that voting is futile. It only means that fewer people agree with you than agree.

 

[MarineCorpsCandidate]

No disrespect, but why don't we just hope that the world will turn into Candyland and we'll all dance together in the gumdrop fields.

With that kind of cynical attitude, it's no wonder nobody shows up to vote. What you fail to realize is that we as individuals are the system. If the system is bad then it is because we as individuals are bad. The system is what you make it.

 

[Harshaw]

Hey, I'm a Libertarian. If you don't think I'm not used to losing elections, you've got another thing comin.

I'm a Libertarian too, and I didn't mean you specifically; I meant it generally.

Which dovetails into:

It's not as simple as saying that, since we vote, we are being represented.

The problem with this statement is that it's predicated on a faulty assumption. No one ever said that your vote means your views are represented. Your vote means, and was ever only meant to mean, that you were consulted, along with everyone else, on the decision of who will represent you. And the system is set up so that you and all your compatriots get to reexamine that decision at regular intervals.

 

[MarineCorpsCandidate]

You offer pretty answers, about us pulling ourselves up by our bootstaps and our problems melting away.

I never said our problems would melt away. I think we have a wonderful system, a one of a kind, but it isn't perfect. It has been amended several times and I think good things start with having a good attitude. But you know, many people they just have this cynical, negative attitude and they don't get out and do anything because they are so cynical and negative that they leave themselves paralized and so their ideas never get implemented. I mean, one of things I would like to see implemented in this country is a public service or military service requirement for all males and females. It will give people an appreciation of what they have, that it must be earned and that their is alot of responsibility with freedom. America has a disease, they have lost touch with the idea that with freedom comes responsibility. Americans want to have freedom without the responsibility that comes with it. Americans have lost touch with their roots and it is because nobody wants to earn the freedom they enjoy, nor accept the responsibilities that come with it. I count myself lucky to enjoy what I have. I have the deepest respect for the ideas that this country is founded on. Americans must recognize they are ideas that are earned and not to be taken for granted. And you can't earn anything with a negative attitude.