[Knothead]

Is it a good idea to require or even encourage all citizens to vote?
I often hear that it said that it's my civic duty to vote. I can't help believing that it's my civic duty to become informed about the issues or candidates before I vote.
If I choose not to become informed, isn't it my civic duty to abstain from voting?
Additionally, is it reasonable to assume that one person's informed vote is canceled out by someone else's arbitrary one?

[sigurdV]

Knothead, on 23 January 2012 - 05:00 PM, said:

Is it a good idea to require or even encourage all citizens to vote?
I often hear that it said that it's my civic duty to vote. I can't help believing that it's my civic duty to become informed about the issues or candidates before I vote.
If I choose not to become informed, isn't it my civic duty to abstain from voting?
Additionally, is it reasonable to assume that one person's informed vote is canceled out by someone else's arbitrary one?

I suppose wolves dont vote unless they get bones...
so why not involve a lottery ticket in the vooffing ?

Sleaze dont vote the zillion might be yours!

[dduckwessel]

I think it's everyone's duty to vote (and yes it makes a difference) but only because of an informed decision. Even still politicians are elected on the basis of their promises (which largely go unfulfilled when they're in office).

It begs the question, why would we elect officials knowing that they will break their promises and not punish that behaviour? Instead they are severely raked over the coals for personal indiscretions. If we kept them accountable for 'their promises' I don't think there would be any personal indiscretions!

I like his explanation:
http://econlog.econl...o_politici.html

[Moontanman]

dduckwessel, on 23 January 2012 - 08:54 PM, said:

I think it's everyone's duty to vote (and yes it makes a difference) but only because of an informed decision. Even still politicians are elected on the basis of their promises (which largely go unfulfilled when they're in office).

It begs the question, why would we elect officials knowing that they will break their promises and not punish that behaviour? Instead they are severely raked over the coals for personal indiscretions. If we kept them accountable for 'their promises' I don't think there would be any personal indiscretions!

I like his explanation:
http://econlog.econl...o_politici.html

If everyone actually made an effort to become informed before they vote our entire way of life would change, i have no idea how it would change but I am quite certain it would...

[Qfwfq]

Knothead, on 23 January 2012 - 05:00 PM, said:

I can't help believing that it's my civic duty to become informed about the issues or candidates before I vote.

This is an important point which never gets stressed enough. Another important thing is what Duck says: judging how they have already conducted mandates. This is important and people in all democratic countries should always keep it in mind.

If everybody voted according to reasonable criteria, by actually following their politicians, whether they have one or another opinion, things would go according to how people want them. Yes, you are one of "everybody" and so you should do as you think everybody should. Instead, politics is a farce because so many voters don't think the way you are saying here; politicians are salespeople competing with each other for their own slice of the cake.

[MacPhee]

Qfwfq, on 27 January 2012 - 11:41 AM, said:

This is an important point which never gets stressed enough. Another important thing is what Duck says: judging how they have already conducted mandates. This is important and people in all democratic countries should always keep it in mind.

If everybody voted according to reasonable criteria, by actually following their politicians, whether they have one or another opinion, things would go according to how people want them. Yes, you are one of "everybody" and so you should do as you think everybody should. Instead, politics is a farce because so many voters don't think the way you are saying here; politicians are salespeople competing with each other for their own slice of the cake.

Is "voting" and "democracy" a rational way to decide things anyway.

Suppose 100 people are asked to decide: "Should we go for Plan A or Plan B?"

On democratic principles, the question is put to a vote. 51 people vote for Plan A. That's a majority. So Plan A gets put into effect. And leads to disaster - it was the wrong choice.

The 49 people who voted for Plan B, were wise. They knew B was right. But they had to abide by the majority decision. So they followed the foolish A voters into disaster. Because the A voters beat them 51-49 in the vote.

Does that sound a reasonable way to run society?

[Knothead]

MacPhee, on 28 January 2012 - 11:44 AM, said:

Is "voting" and "democracy" a rational way to decide things anyway.

Suppose 100 people are asked to decide: "Should we go for Plan A or Plan B?"

On democratic principles, the question is put to a vote. 51 people vote for Plan A. That's a majority. So Plan A gets put into effect. And leads to disaster - it was the wrong choice.

The 49 people who voted for Plan B, were wise. They knew B was right. But they had to abide by the majority decision. So they followed the foolish A voters into disaster. Because the A voters beat them 51-49 in the vote.

Does that sound a reasonable way to run society?

I'm not sure that it does. That's one of the things I'm trying to figure out. But, if the 49 people were really wise, perhaps they should have been able to figure out a way to convince the 51 that their position was stronger. Maybe it all comes down to communication. Or perhaps it comes down to caring enough to try to communicate.

[C1ay]

Personally I'm against voting as a method for choosing the most competent government. I have no doubt that it is the way to choose what the people want but what the people want is not always a good thing. Imagine letting everybody vote on a plan where the government sends everyone a free check every month. Polling the public makes the process a beauty contest where the winner is usually the one that promises the most free gifts to the voters, even if he/she can't keep those promises and isn't qualified to properly hold the office they are after.

Imagine your local bank choosing its CEO by letting the tellers vote instead of the Board Of Directors. They'd vote in the one promising them the biggest raise even if that person had never run a bank. In my opinion its a bad idea.

The Electoral College in the U.S. was originally chosen and designed to prevent this failure in choosing Presidents but the laws of the States of the union have circumvented its use and it has now become a system of popular votes instead of having electors meet and debate who is best qualified for the job

[dduckwessel]

MacPhee, on 28 January 2012 - 11:44 AM, said:

Suppose 100 people are asked to decide: "Should we go for Plan A or Plan B?"

On democratic principles, the question is put to a vote. 51 people vote for Plan A. That's a majority. So Plan A gets put into effect. And leads to disaster - it was the wrong choice.

The 49 people who voted for Plan B, were wise. They knew B was right. But they had to abide by the majority decision. So they followed the foolish A voters into disaster. Because the A voters beat them 51-49 in the vote.

Does that sound a reasonable way to run society?

this is a really good point - we should have put the bar at 70% or higher. How would you run the electoral process MacPhee?

[dduckwessel]

C1ay, on 28 January 2012 - 05:29 PM, said:

Personally I'm against voting as a method for choosing the most competent government. I have no doubt that it is the way to choose what the people want but what the people want is not always a good thing.

What method would you use?

Quote

Imagine your local bank choosing its CEO by letting the tellers vote instead of the Board Of Directors. They'd vote in the one promising them the biggest raise even if that person had never run a bank. In my opinion its a bad idea.

It should be both tellers and a Board of Directors choosing instead of one or the other and then you get a more rounded decision.

Quote

The Electoral College in the U.S. was originally chosen and designed to prevent this failure in choosing Presidents but the laws of the States of the union have circumvented its use and it has now become a system of popular votes instead of having electors meet and debate who is best qualified for the job

That's because the people are no longer controlling the government, government is controlling everything. People need to take back their government.

[C1ay]

dduckwessel, on 28 January 2012 - 06:13 PM, said:

What method would you use?

Some system that allows qualified electors choose from qualified candidates.

dduckwessel, on 28 January 2012 - 06:13 PM, said:

It should be both tellers and a Board of Directors choosing instead of one or the other and then you get a more rounded decision.

A rounded decision is not what's important in choosing the best person qualified.

dduckwessel, on 28 January 2012 - 06:13 PM, said:

That's because the people are no longer controlling the government, government is controlling everything. People need to take back their government.

Actually the people are controlling the government by electing one moron after another to represent them. The system is following the path that would be expected when people are allowed to vote because an increasing majority votes for those that promise the most gifts instead of the most qualified.

[dduckwessel]

C1ay, on 28 January 2012 - 06:24 PM, said:

Some system that allows qualified electors choose from qualified candidates.

Do you mean that politicians elect politicians (or to that affect)? Wouldn't such a system quickly become ingrown, as the politicians themselves would be in each others back pockets, so keeping a tight control on everything?

Quote

A rounded decision is not what's important in choosing the best person qualified.

As it stands the most qualified are getting the positions but it's still not working.

Quote

Actually the people are controlling the government by electing one moron after another to represent them. The system is following the path that would be expected when people are allowed to vote because an increasing majority votes for those that promise the most gifts instead of the most qualified.

It's more like a run-away train - virtually impossible to stop once it gains momentum.

[C1ay]

dduckwessel, on 28 January 2012 - 06:54 PM, said:

Do you mean that politicians elect politicians (or to that affect)? Wouldn't such a system quickly become ingrown, as the politicians themselves would be in each others back pockets, so keeping a tight control on everything?

No, I was thinking of professional that understand the job people are getting elected to do, something that cannot be said about the average voter now.

dduckwessel, on 28 January 2012 - 06:54 PM, said:

As it stands the most qualified are getting the positions but it's still not working.

What's not working? Banking is working fine. The financial problems that have occurred in sectors like housing are the result of government interference.

dduckwessel, on 28 January 2012 - 06:54 PM, said:

It's more like a run-away train - virtually impossible to stop once it gains momentum.

To some extent that's true because we need the people in control now to change the system which effectively means they need to acknowledge the problem, fix it and then fire themselves.

[Qfwfq]

C1ay, on 28 January 2012 - 07:34 PM, said:

No, I was thinking of professional that understand the job people are getting elected to do, something that cannot be said about the average voter now.

And who decides which professional(s) actually do understand the job? How does this choice differ from choosing who does the job?

In the end it's got to come down to either the people or to the regime. There's no way to avoid the fact that not all citizens will agree on different fundamental principles. When they vote, they are typically not choosing the details of a government plan but instead who to trust in making laws and controlling government. This at least is how it works in most countries, with details varying and cases (such as the U. S.) where they also choose the executive directly. Aside from all these details, the idea isn't so much requiring all citizens to be experts but, instead, placing the responsibility on the people... for themselves. If they elect politicians that screw them all up they can blame nobody but themselves...

At least, collectively, because the minority can blame the majority but, at the same time, they could have got their point across better.

[dduckwessel]

C1ay, on 28 January 2012 - 07:34 PM, said:

No, I was thinking of professional that understand the job people are getting elected to do, something that cannot be said about the average voter now.

Are you saying that the average person is incapable of making an informed decision? It sounds like elitism to me...I believe that kind of thinking is the mother of the caste system.

Quote

What's not working? Banking is working fine. The financial problems that have occurred in sectors like housing are the result of government interference.

It's all interrelated but we were speaking of politics specifically!

Quote

To some extent that's true because we need the people in control now to change the system which effectively means they need to acknowledge the problem, fix it and then fire themselves.

The problem is there is not enough policing going on from the average voter (you know - the ones that carry the government!). People elect officials and that's it - they assume the officials are going to stay on track without some kind of accountability. As I said earlier, we need to hold politicians accountable for their promises.