Why People Vote

[Riverwind]

Here is an interesting artical on the issue of lower voter turn out: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/06/magazine...nomics&_r=2

The Swiss love to vote - on parliamentary elections, on plebiscites, on whatever may arise. But voter participation had begun to slip over the years (maybe they stopped handing out live pigs there too), so a new option was introduced: the mail-in ballot. Whereas each voter in the U.S. must register, that isn't the case in Switzerland. Every eligible Swiss citizen began to automatically receive a ballot in the mail, which could then be completed and returned by mail.

....

Not at all. In fact, voter turnout often decreased, especially in smaller cantons and in the smaller communities within cantons. This finding may have serious implications for advocates of Internet voting - which, it has long been argued, would make voting easier and therefore increase turnout. But the Swiss model indicates that the exact opposite might hold true.

....

It goes back to the incentives behind voting. If a given citizen doesn't stand a chance of having her vote affect the outcome, why does she bother? In Switzerland, as in the U.S., "there exists a fairly strong social norm that a good citizen should go to the polls," Funk writes. "As long as poll-voting was the only option, there was an incentive (or pressure) to go to the polls only to be seen handing in the vote. The motivation could be hope for social esteem, benefits from being perceived as a cooperator or just the avoidance of informal sanctions.

This study seems to confirm what I have thought for quite awhile: voter turnout is dropping because it has become socially acceptable to not vote. I see this a symptom of a society where inviduals have become obsessed with their entitlements and forgotten that they also have social obligations.

That is why I think reforming the electoral system is waste of time and will have little long term effect on voter turnout.

[August1991]

This study seems to confirm what I have thought for quite awhile: voter turnout is dropping because it has become socially acceptable to not vote. I see this a symptom of a society where inviduals have become obsessed with their entitlements and forgotten that they also have social obligations.

C'mon, Riverwind. You are playing to your prejudice to explain this observation and in a sense, the journalist is doing the same.

The simple fact is that a single ballot will not change the outcome of a vote. It's perfectly understandable why people don't vote. In Quebec last week, voter turnout for school board elections was 8%. (92% of voters stayed home.)

You seem to think that the reason for this is that people are greedy and only care about themselves without thought for the collective. (Wow! What an original insight into human behaviour!) The journalist more helpfully suggests that in-person voting is like church attendance - the collective will shame each of us into doing it.

For myself, I have suggested that voting is like being a fan of a sports team. It makes the game more interesting if one is partisan.

----

IMV, we must change this thing we call democratic government but I have no idea how we'll change it. Voting is a poor way to select our governments.

[Topaz]

I think its for alot of reasons. The US elections of GW, had come out and said that the elections were fixed by the provider of the computer or the software of the voting machine, who had said that he support Bush and he was sure he win. This was proved in the second election when so many people were against Bush and the war and yet he won. I, for one, am NOT for computers when it comes to voting, the old-fashion way is best. Alot people think, if the party I'm going to vote for isn't going to win, why vote or the party I'm voting is a shoe-in, I don't need to vote. There's people who will say I vote for this party and they lied. I guess you have to put alot of the blame on the politicans themselves and how they govern. I, have voted every time in both provincial and fed elections and voted for ALL parties at one time or the other, but I'm more concern about the leader more than the party itself because you'll find the leader doesn't always go by party lines. I look at his personality and his character to be PM or Premier.

[RedDaVinci]

IMV, we must change this thing we call democratic government but I have no idea how we'll change it. Voting is a poor way to select our governments.

"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried. " -Winston Churchill

I'd like to draw a line between Canadian and American democracy. American presidents have four-year terms and a chance to have two terms if the votes are counted in such a way that suggests they can. The majority wins, the minorities lose big time.

Canadian prime ministers have a cabinet that is elected such that even a "losing" party gets a certain amount of seats-- a minority. Now the political minorities, if they are sufficiently large, get represented in the parliament along with the majority.

Parliamentary democracy allows for people to go to the voting stations and pick any party and know that even if they don't win a majority they can still represent them in government. That's one reason I'm proud to be Canadian-- I don't have to vote for the lesser evil.

We saw a huge turnover in the Quebec elections when the ADQ won almost a third of the seats, driving the pro-francophone PQ, and the Liberal party down in favour of something new while keeping something old.

Given that, it's easy to see why American voting turnouts are low, but not Canadian ones. I'll have to agree with the threat starter in saying that it's a social change... but other than that, I don't know why Canadians would be so reluctant to pick from the variety of parties.

As an aside, our form of democracy also has some pitfalls. First of all, nobody really votes for particular courses of action, just representatives. Second, there can be such a great split in the voters that the cabinet is flooded with minorities that generally disagree with each other, and nothing gets done. I'm thinking of Italy, for example, where their parliament is the laughing stock of the western world. But I don't think that's what we're afraid of... because it doesn't seem that we're getting anywhere close to that reality.

[Riverwind]

You seem to think that the reason for this is that people are greedy and only care about themselves without thought for the collective. (Wow! What an original insight into human behaviour!) The journalist more helpfully suggests that in-person voting is like church attendance - the collective will shame each of us into doing it.

It may be no great insight but there are many people of offering 'solutions' to the problem of low voter turnout who do not understand why people don't vote. As you say, voting provides no 'payback' to the individual - it is only something that makes a difference if everyone does it. This means that we should not justify a person's decision to 'not vote' by claiming it is a problem with a system.

IMV, we must change this thing we call democratic government but I have no idea how we'll change it. Voting is a poor way to select our governments.

The virtue in a democratic government is not in the mechanics of the system but in its ability to facilitate a peaceful and orderly change of power.

[Michael Hardner]

I think that declining voter participation may be something that we can take advantage of.

Once the numbers fall below a certain threshold, it won't be worth it for political parties to pay for mass media buys - i.e. broad-based television advertising. This means that we won't have any more 'gotcha' ads, 'sound byte' ads, and so forth.

That is nothing but good.

[cybercoma]

I think there's a single reason for lack of voter turnout...

A very large portion of the public simply doesn't identify with the politicians that are running.

[Moxie]

I think there's a single reason for lack of voter turnout...

A very large portion of the public simply doesn't identify with the politicians that are running.

Yep, the ordinary working stiff can't tell the difference in the Political Parties anymore. The Cons are the new Classical Liberal, the Liberals are hardcore Socialist, nanny nation supporters. The NDP I haven't got a clue what they stand for anymore, they use to represent (to me) the blue collar worker and the working poor but now they seem more concerned with Transvestites and Gay rights.

For me it's not who I vote for it's who I don't want to win, for me it's the Liberals. Until they decide what they are the Classical Liberal (nope they've lost all of us) or are they the Socialist Party of Canada. The Bloc is a left leaning party also, so we have four left leaning parties to vote for, some have gone so far left they walk sideways. I don't like any of them personally, I want good Government. Strong leadership free of scandle, an open government that answers to the people. I'm sick of liars and cheats leading this country Blah blah. Honour doesn't seem to be a trait in Politicians, that and decency and honesty. It's so depressingggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg.

[RedDaVinci]

I'm surprised, Moxie, that you don't just move to the states if you're so terrified of subsidized hospitals, colleges and hydroelectric power.

Complaining that every party that isn't headed by John Stossel is far-left really limits your options.

[jbg]

Here is an interesting artical on the issue of lower voter turn out: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/06/magazine...nomics&_r=2

This study seems to confirm what I have thought for quite awhile: voter turnout is dropping because it has become socially acceptable to not vote. I see this a symptom of a society where inviduals have become obsessed with their entitlements and forgotten that they also have social obligations.

That is why I think reforming the electoral system is waste of time and will have little long term effect on voter turnout.

My people, the Jews, have about an 80-90% turnout. People complain (including one on this Board) that a "Jewish group owns Canada". While that view is extreme, our impact on government and the professions is no accident.

As far as voting having an impact, need I say more?

[capricorn]

In her last post, Moxie said this: "the ordinary working stiff can't tell the difference in the Political Parties anymore".

That got me thinking that low voter turnout may in part be caused because there are too many political parties from which to choose. Perhaps if Canada was a 2 party system, the choice for Canadians would be clearer and easier. I know this sounds simplistic but sometimes the answer to a question lies right before our nose.

[jbg]

Perhaps if Canada was a 2 party system, the choice for Canadians would be clearer and easier.

I know that a two-party system is Harper's goal. However it's no panacea; US turnout bounces between 50% and 58%.

[Moxie]

I'm surprised, Moxie, that you don't just move to the states if you're so terrified of subsidized hospitals, colleges and hydroelectric power.

Complaining that every party that isn't headed by John Stossel is far-left really limits your options.

Wow for a newbie you do trail behind me boo hooing alot, here's some tissue it's only going to get worse comrade. I could easily leave Canada and live in the US, the people there are proud of their country and not afraid to show it. In Canada to be proud of this country and it's culture it's something to be ashamed of, we get called racists and bigots. Is it my fault that this country was founded on White Europian Christian Culture and not the "Twelve Tribes of Africa"? NO. I'm done with white guilt, I leave that to the appeasers and snot and bawlers.

As per norm you tell me to leave my country because I'm slightly disenfranchised by how far left this country has gone in such a short period of time. I'm going no where but feel free to leave your racially bigoted province for the US I'm sure you would not be welcome though.

Now regarding Social Programs, I am a strong proponant of them. I believe in giving a hand up and a hand out but not for a life time. Where you got your narrow view that I oppose subsidized hospitals and colleges is beyond me. As for hydroelectric, well your province screwed NFL over purdy good, it won't happen again though. Perhaps your Commie Handbook needs to be re-written with less steriotyping?

In her last post, Moxie said this: "the ordinary working stiff can't tell the difference in the Political Parties anymore".

That got me thinking that low voter turnout may in part be caused because there are too many political parties from which to choose. Perhaps if Canada was a 2 party system, the choice for Canadians would be clearer and easier. I know this sounds simplistic but sometimes the answer to a question lies right before our nose.

I'm okay with the multi-party system it's just I see so little deviation of policies or behavior of the Politicians when I watch them on TV they act like spoiled trust fund teenagers. I guess I'm tired of the never ending stream of left right propaganda, I just want good governance. I believe Harper can lead this country, I'm just not happy with his muzzling of MPs. I can live with it though.

Edited November 11, 2007 by Moxie

[maxsyno]

Perhaps its better to just look at who recieves the tax breaks and who pays for them in order to decide whom to vote for. In other words who picks up the tax bill. The theoretical issues are always cloaked and misrepresented. But at least and yes it is 'at least', we can thereby fathom out who are the crooks by working from core figures to endeavour a candidates probabilities in whom he/she chooses to benefit. I think simply judging how 'chaste' they have led there lives does not 'figure' in it at all. A financial record of a party is the only way we can work out incentive. Of course Id feel better if MORE was spent on our social structure. After the wars everybody agreed to pay tax for these basic needs. It was to be a guarantee if we were going to fund rebuilding and change in production processes.

We need a descent healthcare, education system, pensions and welfare in times of change and hardship, it happens! However, Much money is wasted. For one simple example Canada educates many doctors, that costs money. Then the doctors move to the US to recieve a descent wage packet. So Canadian money is wasted here. Im not sure how many years this has gone on but I bet the debt is huge.

[cybercoma]

I'm surprised, Moxie, that you don't just move to the states if you're so terrified of subsidized hospitals, colleges and hydroelectric power.

Complaining that every party that isn't headed by John Stossel is far-left really limits your options.

His comments are what the average perosn is thinking though. Most people are voting against parties that they don't want to win when they do vote and those that don't vote usually sum up their feelings by saying, "they're all the same anyway..."

[Michael Hardner]

Perhaps if Canada was a 2 party system, the choice for Canadians would be clearer and easier. I know this sounds simplistic but sometimes the answer to a question lies right before our nose.

It seems that many people are willing to change the system to promote voter participation, but I'd rather have low participation as long as it is high quality participation.

The idea that 90% of people should vote is impractical and somewhat naive too.

[RedDaVinci]

His comments are what the average person is thinking though. Most people are voting against parties that they don't want to win when they do vote and those that don't vote usually sum up their feelings by saying, "they're all the same anyway..."

I know that's true in a lot of cases, but a responsible voter should not lean left or right, they should concentrate on the issues, the leader, the plausibility of the promises, etc. Loyalty is a good thing, but blindly following a party or ideology gets the nation nowhere.

It seems that many people are willing to change the system to promote voter participation, but I'd rather have low participation as long as it is high quality participation.

The idea that 90% of people should vote is impractical and somewhat naive too.

You hit the nail right on the head here in two aspects:

1) If there are only two parties, it is easier to know what they each represent in general, but in limiting your choice to only two, how much democracy is really going on?

2) People who don't vote are usually apathetic to the voting process. If they did vote, they'd probably scribble a something in for a popular or random party.

[cybercoma]

I know that's true in a lot of cases, but a responsible voter should not lean left or right, they should concentrate on the issues, the leader, the plausibility of the promises, etc. Loyalty is a good thing, but blindly following a party or ideology gets the nation nowhere.

The operative word being "should", they don't and I'm not suggesting that they shouldn't. I'm just stating a reason people don't vote, which may or may not help us understand why people vote.

I think those that do vote are voting against parties and candidates they perceive as being against their interests. Some people don't vote because they feel that not any candidate has the voter's interests at heart. This is why we end up with people saying, "they're all the same." What they mean is that the politicians are varying degrees of bad.

[Moxie]

The operative word being "should", they don't and I'm not suggesting that they shouldn't. I'm just stating a reason people don't vote, which may or may not help us understand why people vote.

I think those that do vote are voting against parties and candidates they perceive as being against their interests. Some people don't vote because they feel that not any candidate has the voter's interests at heart. This is why we end up with people saying, "they're all the same." What they mean is that the politicians are varying degrees of bad.

I agree Cap, the do appear all the same. Why is that? Non-stop bickering instead of moving this country forward. Everyday the Politicians try and win browny points with the public using not the issues but perceived failures or "Supposed" scandles of the current PM. I'm tired of the Liberals squacking, in fact they piss me off to the ninth degree. The public is knumb from corruption and Politicians that are loyal to their party but not to the people who elect them. For things to change Politicians need to ascertain who do they work for? We the public who voted them into office or the Party they Represent. Many moons ago if you elected an MP he fought for the people who elected him, do that in today's political climate and it's suicide. I am tired of inept, petty narrow minded narcissistic politicians. They are the ones who need to change not the voters. In Cape Breton they use to give away a free forty of rum if you voted, I suppose that could help.

It is not possible to NOT lean left or right, and it isn't the voters fault it's the Poltical Parties that have divided this country by using Same Sex Marrage and Abortion as weapons to beat the right about the head. The left force their idiology on society, like it or not we are divided by our political and ethical beliefs. To state one should not lean one way is nonsensical and absurb. If the issues were what really matter than Lian Brian wouldn't be the hot topic our economic growth would be. Ottawa has become a freak show and the Liberals are the main attraction.