Low Information Voters (LIV)

[August1991]

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.

But that's logical. One vote changes nothing - except that you can announce to your friends what team that you chose.

I fear that in the future, more people will respond as I do when faced with a hockey question: "I don't follow the Canadiens."

[Whether I suppport the Canadiens or not, it will not change their likelihood of winning the next game. It only changes what the other person thinks of me.]

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.

Kimmy, consider this question from the perspective of a politician such as Obama or Harper.

It is hard not to imagine that for them, it's a lottery or a casino. Some hands they know they'll win, and other hands they know the House will win. But there are hands that could go either way.

Democracy is good because politicians view it as a crapshoot, something beyond their control.

-----

I recall noting one original thought in Obama's two books. It was the notion that politicians pursue their careers in public, broad daylight. Their success or failure is open for all to see. (Actors also suffer such a career characteristic.) Rather, Obama's point made plain the randomness of political success/failure.

Edited December 30, 2012 by August1991

[Argus]

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.

There's more to it than that, of course. Safety regulations cost money, so do pollution controls. Should we do away with all safety regulations at mines and factories? Should we eliminate pollution controls? It will make business happier and they'll be more likely to locate here.

btw, most of the improvement in employment in 'right to work' states come at the expensive of other states. The first states which did it had the most immediate results. As more and more states do it the improvements become less and less. It's just stealing jobs from other Americans. If all 50 states had the same anti-union legislation there'd be the same employment rate as if they didn't. Unemployment is not a result of unions or their lack. It arises from economic conditions, some of them external to state and national boundaries.

[Spiderfish]

But that's logical. One vote changes nothing - except that you can announce to your friends what team that you chose.

True, but the democratic system works on the median consensus of the population. If you don't contribute your vote, you are not part of the consensus. From my point of view, I would rather be part of a consensus, even if my contribution is of miniscule effect, than give up all the decision making control. If nothing else, at least I will have confirmed my stance.

[Pliny]

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.

I think you are right. Australia disagrees and has fines for people who don't vote. They want everyone to vote.

What do you think the LIV is voting for? How are they making their decisions?

[TimG]

Unemployment is not a result of unions or their lack. It arises from economic conditions, some of them external to state and national boundaries.

Unemployment is a a direct result of government policies. Policies that increase labour costs and/or business operating costs increase unemployment. Policies that undermine business confidence or discourage capital investment increase unemployment. Policies which discourage workers from moving for employment or taking training to upgrade their skills increase unemployment. Obviously external factors matter and not all policies that increase unemployment are bad but domestic policies are most important.

[dre]

Unemployment is a a direct result of government policies.

No it isnt. Unemployment is a direct result of people being able to find work, and that can happen for hundreds of different reasons besides government policy.

Youve bought into this urban myth that economic growth or stagnation happen simply because of government. In reality government is just one small factor, and we have seen both strong and weak economies under every policy regime imaginable (low tax, high tax, low regulation, high regulation, etc). Even in an economy with no regulation at all you would still have booms, busts, bubbles etc.

Argus was exactly right when he stated...

It arises from economic conditions, some of them external to state and national boundaries.

[TimG]

Youve bought into this urban myth that economic growth or stagnation happen simply because of government.

No. You are the one believing the myth. Unemployment is greatly affected by government policies but a change in policy may take a long time to deliver a result. We have seen this reality play out in country after country. Countries which make running a business difficult and make employment expensive see high unemployment. Countries which streamline regulations and decrease the cost of employment see their unemployment drop. Exceptions to this rule exist but are few and far between.

[dre]

No. You are the one believing the myth. Unemployment is greatly affected by government policies but a change in policy may take a long time to deliver a result. We have seen this reality play out in country after country. Countries which make running a business difficult and make employment expensive see high unemployment. Countries which streamline regulations and decrease the cost of employment see their unemployment drop. Exceptions to this rule exist but are few and far between.

No. You are the one believing the myth. Unemployment is greatly affected by government policies but a change in policy may take a long time to deliver a result. We have seen this reality play out in country after country. Countries which make running a business difficult and make employment expensive see high unemployment. Countries which streamline regulations and decrease the cost of employment see their unemployment drop. Exceptions to this rule exist but are few and far between.

This is nothing but a religious belief.

[Bonam]

btw, most of the improvement in employment in 'right to work' states come at the expensive of other states. The first states which did it had the most immediate results. As more and more states do it the improvements become less and less. It's just stealing jobs from other Americans. If all 50 states had the same anti-union legislation there'd be the same employment rate as if they didn't.

Not true, competition is not only between states in the US. You seem to have forgotten there is a world outside America.

[Argus]

I think you are right. Australia disagrees and has fines for people who don't vote. They want everyone to vote.

And look at the government THEY'VE got...

[Argus]

Unemployment is a a direct result of government policies. Policies that increase labour costs and/or business operating costs increase unemployment. Policies that undermine business confidence or discourage capital investment increase unemployment. Policies which discourage workers from moving for employment or taking training to upgrade their skills increase unemployment. Obviously external factors matter and not all policies that increase unemployment are bad but domestic policies are most important.

But unions are not a factor of domestic economic policies. You can't look at countries with high unemployment and determine how strong unions are based on their unemployment rate. Many nations with strong unions have booming economies and low unemployment. And then there's the US...

[Argus]

Not true, competition is not only between states in the US. You seem to have forgotten there is a world outside America.

If you want to compete with the world outside America based on wages and benefits you need to dig a deep hole and lower everyone's expectations well below ground level. Forget those 2300 square foot houses with two car garages and start looking at one room tarpaper shacks. Most of the people in third world countries live in homes smaller than the average American garage.

Edited December 31, 2012 by Argus

[carepov]

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

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

I agree that LIVs are a problem. I would guess that somewhere between 50-80 % of the Canadian adult population should be considered LIV, what do you think?

A different electoral system may get a few more people interested but IMO, the impact would be small and it would be far too difficult (almost impossible) to implement a change to the electoral system (think Meech Lake, Charlottetown Accord, or BC referendum).

IMO, we have so many LIVs because so many people:

1. Have chosen to stop learning about the world around them (lack curiosity and the desire to know the truth)
   
2. Care only about themselves (lack empathy)
   

You cannot make anyone love to learn or force someone to be empathetic – but you can sure discourage it and allow a child’s love to learn to fizzle away into ignorance. It looks to me like our school system and many parents are mainly responsible. Ignorance and selfishness is also amplified and reflected back though our media.

[TimG]

But unions are not a factor of domestic economic policies. You can't look at countries with high unemployment and determine how strong unions are based on their unemployment rate. Many nations with strong unions have booming economies and low unemployment. And then there's the US.

As usual, the devil is in the details. http://www.cepr.org/press/LM4439PR.htm

Unions, Wage Setting and Minimum Wages. The existence of strong trade unions can be expected to raise unemployment and lower growth rates except under certain circumstances. First, their harmful impact on unemployment can be offset if unions and firms can co-ordinate centrally over wage setting. Second, their harmful effect on growth rates can be offset if management and unions adopt a more co-operative and less adversarial stance. The difficulty here is the tendency for co-ordinating or co-operative endeavours to be unstable unless there are supporting institutions, (such as local employers’ federations in Germany).

A key factor forcing management and unions to adopt a co-operative stance is external competitive pressure. This suggests that encouraging high levels of product market competition is an important way of eliminating the negative effects of trade unions.

IOW - strong public sector unions will increase unemployment. This also provides evidence that 'right to work' laws should increase employment since now unions are subject to competition.

Also note this:

There is no evidence that stricter labour standards or employment protection lead to higher unemployment. Employment protection does, however, raise long-term unemployment and lower short-term unemployment, by reducing the rate of flow out of and into unemployment. As far as growth is concerned, there is no reason to believe that stricter labour standards or employment protection lower productivity growth rates - indeed maybe the reverse.

I am not sure what to make of this paragraph since it contradicts itself. I suspect it meant to say that labour standards have no effect on employment but employment protection schemes do increase the long term unemployment. Edited December 31, 2012 by TimG

[cybercoma]

IMO, we have so many LIVs because so many people:

1. Have chosen to stop learning about the world around them (lack curiosity and the desire to know the truth)
   
2. Care only about themselves (lack empathy)
   

I disagree. The two primary reasons for voter disengagement are 1) lack of civic engagement, and 2) lack of trust in politicians and government.

edit: just to elaborate because I can see someone saying lack of civic engagement is the same thing as lacking empathy or only caring about themselves. This is absolutely not the case. One can care plenty about those around them, donate to charity, and be an empathetic person without civic engagement. Civic engagement is about taking action for public issues. It is liberal project or individual independence that has blinded people to issues of public concern and made their own personal ventures their primary focus. Public matters become a blind spot and we get people advocating for a Hobbesian war of all against all. This kind of civic disengagement makes people isolated in an aggressive society, which leads to social distrust and point number 2. People increasingly distrust each other and their institutions. It's a downward spiral.

Edited January 2, 2013 by cybercoma

[carepov]

I disagree. The two primary reasons for voter disengagement are 1) lack of civic engagement, and 2) lack of trust in politicians and government.

edit: just to elaborate because I can see someone saying lack of civic engagement is the same thing as lacking empathy or only caring about themselves. This is absolutely not the case. One can care plenty about those around them, donate to charity, and be an empathetic person without civic engagement. Civic engagement is about taking action for public issues. It is liberal project or individual independence that has blinded people to issues of public concern and made their own personal ventures their primary focus. Public matters become a blind spot and we get people advocating for a Hobbesian war of all against all. This kind of civic disengagement makes people isolated in an aggressive society, which leads to social distrust and point number 2. People increasingly distrust each other and their institutions. It's a downward spiral.

Just to be clear, LIVs include most people that don’t vote and those people that vote based on some senseless criteria – these people may be engaged but they are just stupid.

I agree that one can be empathetic but civically disengaged but my guess is that there are relatively very few people like this.

I agree that a lack of trust in politicians and government is an issue but I again blame voter stupidity for this. We voters keep letting politicians get away with lies and we are positively re-enforcing their deceptiveness through our votes. I could also spin the trust issue in another direction, many Canadian voters put too much trust in politicians, i.e. they are gullible – this would help explain why political TV advertizing is so effective.

[TimG]

We voters keep letting politicians get away with lies and we are positively re-enforcing their deceptiveness through our votes.

Voters have shown over and over again that they do not want to hear the truth. Politicians that speak the truth are usually punished in the polls. The silly fiscal cliff deal in the US is a good example - the US will not get it finances in order until it reforms (i.e. reduces) entitlements and raises taxes on everyone (including but not limited to "the rich") - but no one wants to hear that so politicians lie and claim that the problem could be solved with "no tax increases" or "no program cuts". Edited January 2, 2013 by TimG

[August1991]

True, but the democratic system works on the median consensus of the population. If you don't contribute your vote, you are not part of the consensus.

Huh? Large collective votes are never at the margin, at the median, and so a single vote changes nothing.

Spiderfish, have you ever voted in any election/vote (PR, FPTP, committee, hand raised) where your single ballot/vote changed the end result?

From the perspective of an individual, it makes no sense to research candidates, or vote. It is better to spend time researching a car lease.

[eyeball]

Voters have shown over and over again that they do not want to hear the truth.

Speaking of bargain basement info...this is a prime example.

[Michael Hardner]

Well, it's not untrue either - regardless of politics. Surely, eyeball, you have some examples of voters in denial over issues that matter to you personally such as the environment ?

In any case, we're here because we care about such things and that proves that there is a core of Adequte Information Voters ( I won't use the term 'High' for a few reasons) who - in adequate numbers - could improve the level of dialogue.

All of us - left and right - should be working together to increase our profile as a group and thereby make government better. I don't know how to do this, though.

[carepov]

In any case, we're here because we care about such things and that proves that there is a core of Adequte Information Voters ( I won't use the term 'High' for a few reasons) who - in adequate numbers - could improve the level of dialogue.

Yes are certainly some AIVs, however that are many LIVs here too.

All of us - left and right - should be working together to increase our profile as a group and thereby make government better. I don't know how to do this, though.

Who do you mean by "us"? If you mean the MLW community then I disagree, our group is about as likely to make the governement worse as it is better.

[Michael Hardner]

Who do you mean by "us"? If you mean the MLW community then I disagree, our group is about as likely to make the governement worse as it is better.

I mean communities like ours, yes. I don't think it's likely to make it worse than better - our dialogue here is better in quality than dialogue I have elsewhere, IMO.

[carepov]

I mean communities like ours, yes. I don't think it's likely to make it worse than better - our dialogue here is better in quality than dialogue I have elsewhere, IMO.

OK, I understand better what you are saying and now agree with you.

[eyeball]

Well, it's not untrue either - regardless of politics. Surely, eyeball, you have some examples of voters in denial over issues that matter to you personally such as the environment ?

Actually it's the denial over our governance that really bakes my noodle.

In any case, we're here because we care about such things and that proves that there is a core of Adequte Information Voters ( I won't use the term 'High' for a few reasons) who - in adequate numbers - could improve the level of dialogue.

All of us - left and right - should be working together to increase our profile as a group and thereby make government better. I don't know how to do this, though.

I don't either, and personally I'm starting to move more towards not caring. I've dropped out of a couple of local boards I've been on for decades and it's been liberating in a lot of ways. The last one, an area planning committee, melted down during a meeting in which our director chose to override the committees unanimous decision on a land use (fish-farm) application. The director blew up at us, we walked out and I notice a year later there's still no new committee.

It's obviously not just me, local committees and boards have never been as hard up for members as the last few years. A lot of the local people who used to give a shit have gone diaspora due to economic mismanagement and the loss/destruction of our local industrial bases and most new locals are really only here for the season. The sense of community seems more contrived and artificial...like our governance.

There's a lot to be said about disengaging aside from lingering regrets about what now feels like a waste of time invested in years of involvement. It just doesn't feel like it's mattered, not even a bit. I still get the odd call asking me to get back into things but I'm more interested in chilling with my grand daughter and staying clear of the politics.

Caring about such things in our forum here is more like an old habit. It probably matters even less in the real world.

Edited January 4, 2013 by eyeball

[August1991]

In any case, we're here because we care about such things and that proves that there is a core of Adequte Information Voters ( I won't use the term 'High' for a few reasons) who - in adequate numbers - could improve the level of dialogue.

We're hockey fanatics, who have largely chosen a team.

All of us - left and right - should be working together to increase our profile as a group and thereby make government better. I don't know how to do this, though.

As if Hab fans would work with New York fans.

-----

Such is our modern democratic politics. And the narcissists/egoists/psychopaths such as Obama, Nixon, Harper, Trudeau know how to appeal to our group/hive sense.