Low Information Voters (LIV)

[August1991]

I think the term "Low Information Voter" dates from the 1990s. According to Wikipedia, the Clinton campaign in the 1990s used the term to describe Republican "red necks" who don't follow politics closely. (Clinton ate a Big Mac to identify himself with this voter group.)

IMHO, LIVs are the greatest challenge of modern democracy. Why?

Every 5 years or so, a typical family buys a new car. To decide/choose the car, they think of their past cars, ask family, friends, check on the Internet and, true, watch ads. (Ads are more likely to influence younger buyers but then again if a company has money to advertise, its product must be popular... )

Compare your family's research of your next car, and how you researched the next political candidate.

------

Political candidate? Rather than discuss sexy politicians (eg. Obama), what about municipal politicians (eg. Ford)?

The voter turn out in municipal elections (in Canada) is about 20%. Yet most people pay more in property tax than they pay in a car lease.

-----

Will proportional voting (or any voting scheme, PR, FPTP, etc) change this fundamental incentive in municipal elections?

When you buy something, you are free to choose. When you pay taxes, bureaucrats/politicians spend your money.

Edited December 28, 2012 by August1991

[Argus]

People don't value their vote because it comes to easily, too cheaply. I don't want more people to vote. I want less people to vote, less of those "low information" people you refer to. I think you should have to get a license to vote. You should need to demonstrate a certain level of knowledge and understanding of the issues at hand, the individuals involved, and the functioning of government before being allowed to vote. Stupid and lazy people would thus be unable to vote.

[cybercoma]

I wish this thread generated more discussion because it's a great topic.

Something that I think is worth considering is the idea that talking about politics is taboo and how social media is changing that. People more freely and openly discuss politics "publicly" through various social media outlets. However, the inherent problem with this is that the democratic nature of picking and choosing your sources through social media can lead to an echo chamber effect. It may be the case that people are less likely to make a concentrated effort to analyze the various options and candidates. It would be like owning a Ford and only subscribing to Ford fan forums. When you go to buy your new car, you're so exposed to Ford forum commentary that you go out and browse the Ford website and other information about what people are saying about Fords. Then you go out and buy one without ever really having given Chrysler, GM, Toyota, Hyundai, or Volkswagen any consideration whatsoever. After all, you identify yourself as a "Ford person." It becomes part of your identity, as you surround yourself with all things Ford. It's no longer about Ford being the better product. It's about the product consuming you and becoming part of your identity.

[dre]

Our political system doesnt require good information. A large majority of the voters have unwittingly allowed themselves to be aligned into the left/right/liberal/conservative dichotomy.

The only information they require is which party a candidate belongs too, and no ammount of information would change their vote anyways.

[TimG]

The fact is most people do not have the time or desire to expend the effort required to understand the various issues. The only way they can make any rational decision at all is to find politicians that share their values and trust them to make sensible decisions. In our political system the MPs don't mean much so people tend to look at the party platform and the PM when they make their decision.

IOW - representational democracy was designed to deal with LIV so I am not sure what the issue is.

Edited December 28, 2012 by TimG

[Spiderfish]

Many people who I've talked with who don't take an active interest in politics or voting say that they don't vote because they feel it doesn't matter how they vote, it won't make a difference in their lives. I'm not sure if this willful ignorance truly reflects their loss of trust or relevance in the system, or if it's just what they say to mask their lazy indifference.

I tend to think that many who don't vote just don't care to take the time to educate themselves and don't truly understand the power that voting gives people. I once tried to talk to a co-worker about a political issue, and he just stared at me like I had two heads until i had finished. He then exclaimed "you follow that crap!?" I explained to him that there was no single investment I contributed to in my life more than my government, and damn right I followed that crap. I think it went right over his head.

I have always said that the number one thing government could do to combat voter apathy is change the tax system so that people were responsible for their own taxes rather than their employer. People look at their tax contributions as just some automatic chunk that disappears off their paycheque, they don't equate that as money they have earned that they are contributing to the government. I can tell you first hand that when I was self-employed, writing a large cheque every 3 months when my quarterly installment came due made me a whole lot more interested in what the government was doing with the tax dollars they were given. Of course this would not work, people in general are not responsible enough and government would spend all of their time chasing everyone for their contributions. But people have to realize that the money that mysteriously disappears off their paycheque stubs that they never look at is money that they have earned.

Edited December 28, 2012 by Spiderfish

[Michael Hardner]

IOW - representational democracy was designed to deal with LIV so I am not sure what the issue is.

Yes, that's true - but there is a level at which it falls apart. The question is - where is that point ? How do we manage low information to stay above a certain level ?

[eyeball]

Let it fall, push it down even, so when it finally hits bottom it's got nowhere else to go but up. If it can't get up, so be it.

I think our political and electoral systems suck. That's not to say they might be better if they were used or employed in a truly transparent and honourable manner but they're not so I'm assuming the worst. If I vote at all I do so in whatever manner I think will throw as much chaos into the system as possible. At the moment I think not voting does that the best.

I'm informed and was active politically in my region for decades. Now I'm so disgusted, jaded and cynical that I think my participation in an election merely encourages the corrupt bastards and is mistaken as a vote of support for the system they bullshit and fuck me over with. I think a much larger proportion of voters who don't vote also do so out of similar sentiments and this notion that we're are too apathetic or ignorant is just so much sycophantic wishful thinking intended to make holders of this view feel better about themselves.

They should be ashamed of the message their self-righteous adoration sends the system and the political parties and establishment insiders that benefit from it.

[TimG]

How do we manage low information to stay above a certain level?

LIVs are not the problem - the echo chambers are the problems. Look at the student protests in Quebec - we had a group of people that were likely informed about many issues but completely ignorant of economics. As a result they made demands without understanding the consequences of those demands and the echo chambers they followed did not explain the consequences. These kinds of voters are a bigger problem then LIVs. Edited December 28, 2012 by TimG

[eyeball]

The bongos drive me nuts too but their hearts are in the right correct place.

[Michael Hardner]

LIVs are not the problem - the echo chambers are the problems. Look at the student protests in Quebec - we had a group of people that were likely informed about many issues but completely ignorant of economics. As a result they made demands without understanding the consequences of those demands and the echo chambers they followed did not explain the consequences. These kinds of voters are a bigger problem then LIVs.

I think it's a kind of LIV, though. LIV should include untested opinions.

[BC_chick]

Many people who I've talked with who don't take an active interest in politics or voting say that they don't vote because they feel it doesn't matter how they vote, it won't make a difference in their lives. I'm not sure if this willful ignorance truly reflects their loss of trust or relevance in the system, or if it's just what they say to mask their lazy indifference.

To be fair, the impact on our everyday lives is not very visible so I don't think it's necessarily laziness or willfull ignorance. Sure, the economy matters in where your job is headed. Getting into wars matters. The environment and the future of our planet matters.

But I'm talking about what people can see and feel on an everyday basis. A lot of these issues are ideological and even though they impact our lives tremendously we're not really aware of it as we drive to work and come home and think about what we're going to make for dinner.

Sometimes I wish I didn't care to be honest.

Edited December 29, 2012 by BC_chick

[MiddleClassCentrist]

LIV is the name of our political game.

Right to Work is "for worker choice" but, when actually looking deeper, no benefits go to the worker in the long run.

Poor people vote conservative to pay fewer taxes... When they already pay nearly nothing and would only receive less assistance under a consevative reign. People in the top 5% (but less than 1%) often see themselves as middle class and vote to give away their wealth.

[TimG]

Right to Work is "for worker choice" but, when actually looking deeper, no benefits go to the worker in the long run.

Not true. Wages are lower in 'right to work' states but more people have jobs. This means the benefits of employment are distributed to more people. Edited December 29, 2012 by TimG

[Argus]

The fact is most people do not have the time or desire to expend the effort required to understand the various issues.

People have the time and desire to learn how to play complex video games which require hours and days and weeks of time to rise through the various levels. I refuse to accept they don't have the time to learn about basic issues which affect them.

[kimmy]

People have the time and desire to learn how to play complex video games which require hours and days and weeks of time to rise through the various levels. I refuse to accept they don't have the time to learn about basic issues which affect them.

But why bother?

Many of us live in ridings where our MP or MLA wins election by massive margins. It's hard to convince yourself that casting a ballet once every 4 years matters, especially when the election results are a foregone conclusion.

Maybe there is some other way of contributing to the political consensus. Do protests matter? Do news items matter? Does social media matter?

-k

[Pliny]

What information is necessary?

I want an Obamaphone. I want everyone equal. I want government to take from the haves and give to me. I want free healthcare and education.

I think that about sums up the left as defined by the right.

The right is summed up by the left as wanting the poor to starve and die, the rich to exploit the poor and a big arsenal for defense against the boogeyman.

Does this describe the vast quantity of "information"(or "lies" if you prefer) in the media? Is it how the low information voter determines his vote if they feel the inclination to vote at all?

The above may sound pretty black and white but it is how I see politics playing out. The right and the left growing government out of society's special interest groups. The left and right don't seem to step on each others toes much in the march to bigger government.

How about we start with understanding what a Constitution is? It provides the system of government and the structure. The problem is we have to all be lawyers to understand what government is actually doing and what it all means to the general populace. We essentially wind up voting for privlege out of government largesse. Eventually, they will reach the economic barrier of unsustainability and we get collapse.

Does anyone see how a trillion dollar annual deficit in the US federal budget is sustainable? The Obama administration is claiming they have proposed cuts of 1.2 trillion dollars? Does anyone know what that means? It is over a period of 10 years and it is cuts to increases in the baseline budget - inother words there are no actual cuts and 1.2 trillion dollars over 10 years is not even a serious proposal.

Right or left, It's all a bunch of lies and scheming that cannot but end in some form of collapse and perhaps an emergent tyranny.

[TimG]

People have the time and desire to learn how to play complex video games which require hours and days and weeks of time to rise through the various levels. I refuse to accept they don't have the time to learn about basic issues which affect them.

Playing a video game is often a repetitive task that requires no real thought. More importantly, people are not faced with legions of people who are lying or misrepresenting facts about the video game in order to promote some personal self interest. The latter point is what makes learning about political issues difficult. Edited December 29, 2012 by TimG

[Argus]

But why bother?

Many of us live in ridings where our MP or MLA wins election by massive margins. It's hard to convince yourself that casting a ballet once every 4 years matters, especially when the election results are a foregone conclusion.

Maybe there is some other way of contributing to the political consensus. Do protests matter? Do news items matter? Does social media matter?

-k

Well, you could run against them. If you're as good at stating your positions verbally as you are in writing I'm sure you'd have some influence.

[TheNewTeddy]

LIV's should be encouraged to stay home and not vote. All this drive for more turnout is what is really destructive. People who do not care or know enough to vote should be encouraged to exercise their option to not vote.

[MiddleClassCentrist]

Not true. Wages are lower in 'right to work' states but more people have jobs. This means the benefits of employment are distributed to more people.

Unproven claim.

[TimG]

Unproven claim.

The data is there for people to look at who are interested in facts rather than ideology:

Critics of the laws say they hold down wages. And indeed, private-sector employees in right-to-work states earned an average of $738.43 a week in the past 12 months, 9.8% less than workers in states without such laws, according to an analysis of Labor Department data that didn't include health-care and other benefits. But proving cause and effect on wages is difficult, since many factors influence what workers are paid in a given locale, such as whether the mix of businesses are concentrated in higher-paying industries.

Some economists say when differences in cost of living are taken into account, wages are roughly the same—or even higher—in right-to-work states.

Meanwhile, private employment has grown 4.9% in right-to-work states over the past three years, versus 3.9% in other states, according to an analysis of Labor Department data. This disparity is particularly stark in the factory sector: Manufacturing employment has grown 4.1% in right-to-work states over the past three years, compared with less than 3% in other states. Meanwhile, factory jobs pay 7.4% less in right-to-work states.

http://online.wsj.co...3136860138.html Edited December 30, 2012 by TimG

[cybercoma]

So there's a bit more than 1% difference in employment growth (4.1% vs the ever so vague "less than 3%"), but there's a difference of 7.4% in the wages.

Tough sell, Tim.

edit: Also, it's tough to say that the entire difference in growth is their anti-union legislation. There's obviously a number of different factors that contribute to that 1%. What portion of it is RTW? The difference in wages, however, all else being equal must be the RTW legislation.

Edited December 30, 2012 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

But then this thread has nothing to do with "unions or right-to-work" legislation.

[August1991]

People don't value their vote because it comes to easily, too cheaply.

Argus, people don't value their vote because it doesn't change anything - except possibly their reputation with other people. If you make a good decision when buying a car, it has a direct effect on your life.

People more freely and openly discuss politics "publicly" through various social media outlets.

Most of social media is about who is hanging out/sleeping with whom, more or less. Private affairs understandably now crowd out public affairs.

However, the inherent problem with this is that the democratic nature of picking and choosing your sources through social media can lead to an echo chamber effect. It may be the case that people are less likely to make a concentrated effort to analyze the various options and candidates. It would be like owning a Ford and only subscribing to Ford fan forums....

Cybercoma, your analogy is terrifying - and the reason that I started this thread.

If a Ford is a bad car, then the choice to buy it was bad for my family. Next time, I can choose a different car. We don't vote in elections the same way. Whoever I vote for, the end choice is decided by many others. I can change my vote, or not vote, but the end result is the same.

The choice of car is individual; elections are collective.

The fact is most people do not have the time or desire to expend the effort required to understand the various issues.

But they have the time and desire to research their next car/truck. TimG, have you ever wondered why some people spend more time/effort researching a car purchase than a vote in an election? (BTW, most Canadians spend more in taxes than they do in car payments.) Edited December 30, 2012 by August1991