Does My Vote Actually Mean Anything?

[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]

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.econlib.org/archives/2009/05/why_do_politici.html

[Moontanman]

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.econlib.org/archives/2009/05/why_do_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]

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.

[Guest MacPhee]

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]

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]

 

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]

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?

 

 

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.

 

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]

What method would you use?

Some system that allows qualified electors choose from qualified candidates.

 

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.

 

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]

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?

 

 

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.

 

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]

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.

 

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.

 

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]

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]

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.

 

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!

 

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.

[dduckwessel]

In the end it's got to come down to either the people or to the regime.

 

 

I personally think it's a twofold problem; both the politicians and the general public are not upholding their end. As I said earlier, the politicians are not keeping their promises and the general public are not holding them accountable for those promises.

 

However, just as soon as the politician commits a personal indiscretion, suddenly the general public finds their voices. I'm not saying that government officials shouldn't be held to high standards of moral behaviour but that the 'raking over the coals' could have been avoided with a timely 'rap on the knuckles'.

 

In this respect I blame the failure of government on the public for a lack of due diligence.

[CraigD]

What this thread strikes me as poking a problem well known to government founding bodies, such as the several congresses and conventions in late 18th century America that gave rise to the government of the United States: how to assure that capable people conduced the affairs of the nation, yet not in the process reduce the status of the majority of the people to a status akin to un-consenting slave of the state / serf.

 

IMHO, the approach of the founders of the US was an excellent one, consisting primarily of stating a very small collection – two, by my count – of principles according to which a government could be designed to achieve this balance:

1. That there should be no legally codified differences between individual people – that is, no explicit classes, such as nobles, commoners, and slaves.
   
2. That government requires the consent of those subject to it (for historical reasons, we Americans don’t refer to such people as “subjects”)
   

These principles are clearly and explicitly stated in 2nd paragraph of the US Declaration of Independence of July 4 1776. The rest of the document is essential a list of grievances against the government of England, personified by its King, justifying the US’s rejection of that government, and effectively declaring a state of war to already exist between the two states, pointedly one started by the English government.

 

Many possible governments can satisfy the above 2 conditions. The US’s, codified just over 11 years later in the US Constitution, a document defining in many words how the US government must be structured and function, and, in the first 16 words of Article 4 section 4, known as the Guarantee Clause, that every state must be essentially similar, in that they must have “a Republican Form of Government”.

 

Next to the importance of the 2 conditions, the structure of the US government – its 3 branches, its 2-house legislature, etc – are mere details. The US government would remain legitimate had it a single rather than a bicameral legislature, or with any one or both of its branches folded into the others, so long as it met the 2 conditions.

 

Looking at these 2 conditions, which the Declaration and the Constitution implicitly yet clearly make requirements of “a republican form of government”, it’s clear the 2nd set an impossibly high standard. It doesn’t state “government require the consent of a majority of the governed”, but that it requires the consent of, absent other qualification, all of the governed. Being impossibly high, a practical interpretation is needed, and has many times been made by the US government: that all reasonably identifiable subpopulations, even fairly small minorities, must consent.

 

For this to be possible, the US and all the state governments must, essentially, give every identifiable subpopulation at least some of what it wants from government. This is less difficult that it at first sounds, because practically all the subpopulations have in common a want to be left alone by their government.

 

Assuring the consent of the governed precludes direct democracy – that is, passing laws by some majority vote of the People – because, at various times, a majority of the American people passionately believe that some minority should be prohibited from engaging in some behavior they would rescind their consent of their government if denied. Racial and religious minorities, non-primary English speakers, non-heterosexuals, physical or mental defectives – these and more groups have, at various times, been deemed worthy of forced conversion, expulsion, or even sterilization or execution, by a majority of Americans.

 

The way the specific government guaranteed to the People by the US Constitution achieves this (when it does – like all human enterprises, the US is imperfect, having actually permitted at various times the enslavement, imprisonment and execution of various minorities)