dre Posted October 16, 2015 Report Posted October 16, 2015 Governments are institutionally incapable of representing young people, regardless of voting statistics. How many young people are in positions of real power? No they arent... thats silly. If young people voted in high numbers and seniors voted in low numbers you would see the opposite result. Decisions that favor young people such as national college tuition programs etc. Parties would need to court these voters or they would not win. If only men voted then you would get decisions favorable to men. If only immigrants voted you would get decisions favorable to them. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
ToadBrother Posted October 16, 2015 Report Posted October 16, 2015 No but it WOULD force political parties to consider those demographics. For example if young people were going to be forced to vote parties would need to compete for that demographic. Would it? Since these people are semi-detached from the political system at the best of times, how is it precisely that the parties could target them? If endless TV, radio, mail, YouTube and social networking spots isn't clicking now, how is mandatory voting going to make it any better. But I still dont think you NEED to force them. Just make it really easy... young people could vote at school as part of a short civics course. Make it so that people can vote easily online. Instead we force 20 million people to give up hours of their time stand in sometimes long lines, leave their place of employment or give up hours of their free time, so that they can make a mark on a piece of paper with ink so that piece of paper can be manually counted later LOL. And you don't see potential issues with online voting that wouldn't challenge its legitimacy? Voting is really bloody easy as it is. Quote
Bonam Posted October 16, 2015 Report Posted October 16, 2015 (edited) No they arent... thats silly. If young people voted in high numbers and seniors voted in low numbers you would see the opposite result. Decisions that favor young people such as national college tuition programs etc. Parties would need to court these voters or they would not win. If only men voted then you would get decisions favorable to men. If only immigrants voted you would get decisions favorable to them. This is incorrect. Representation depends not only on who votes, but on who gets elected/appointed to the most powerful positions. Governments and corporations are frequently criticized if they don't have enough "diversity" (women and minority groups) in their top ranks, and this is because people recognize that to truly represent these groups, you don't just need their votes but you need to have members of these groups in power. If every single elected official was male, would you assume that the government adequately represents women, just because half the people that voted for it were women? Remember that this was almost exactly the case just a few decades ago. Edited October 16, 2015 by Bonam Quote
dre Posted October 16, 2015 Report Posted October 16, 2015 In contrast, as standards of living in Western countries have risen since WWII and the political situation has increasingly become more stable and less likely to affect people's personal lives in any significant way, voter turnouts have steadily fallen. People aren't voting because the outcome doesn't really affect them enough for them to bother. No none of that is true. Voter turnout is roughly the same today as it was in 1940. Its higher than it was in 1925. The decline we see is following its peak in the late 80's. I think theres two reasons for that... we have seen a huge growth in the power of special and corporate interests. People have the perception that no matter how they vote real decisions will be made in some smoke-filled backroom. Also the electoral system is incompatible with how people do things today especially non-seniors. They buy their products online, they do their taxes online, they do their banking online... They dont want to waste half their day waiting in a long lineup to make a mark on piece of paper with a pen. The biggest factor though is the first one. Trust in government. People that think all the choices are bad, and the system itself is corrupt are unlikely to vote. Thats why you see these "agent of change" campaigns and attempts by parties to win by engaging non-voters. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
dre Posted October 16, 2015 Report Posted October 16, 2015 Representation depends not only on who votes, but on who gets elected/appointed to the most powerful positions. Not really because no matter who is elected they need to pander to a large enough consituency to win. If every single elected official was male, would you assume that the government adequately represents women, just because half the people that voted for it were women? Remember that this was almost exactly the case just a few decades ago. Your example actually shoots down your own theory. Despite the fact we have a government thats always been lead by men, and has been mostly comprised of men, since womens sufferage we have had an unending parade of legislation, results, and decisions that favor women... decisions made for the most part by men. Its a large demographic, and one that politicians actively court. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Bonam Posted October 16, 2015 Report Posted October 16, 2015 No none of that is true. Voter turnout is roughly the same today as it was in 1940. Its higher than it was in 1925. The decline we see is following its peak in the late 80's. Canada's voter turnout since 1957: Trend of general decline. US voter turnout since the 1800s: Note the general trend of decline from the 50s until 2000 or so, and then increasing voter turnout in the post 9/11 unrest. Also the electoral system is incompatible with how people do things today especially non-seniors. They buy their products online, they do their taxes online, they do their banking online... They dont want to waste half their day waiting in a long lineup to make a mark on piece of paper with a pen. I've already said I agree with this. That said, we've have threads on this before, and the consensus of the trogdolytes is that it's not "secure enough" to vote online. The biggest factor though is the first one. Trust in government. People that think all the choices are bad, and the system itself is corrupt are unlikely to vote. Thats why you see these "agent of change" campaigns and attempts by parties to win by engaging non-voters. You are making a factual assertion, attributing causation of a certain phenomenon to something. Do you have any firm evidence to back this up? Quote
dre Posted October 16, 2015 Report Posted October 16, 2015 And you don't see potential issues with online voting that wouldn't challenge its legitimacy?Voting is really bloody easy as it is. Theres lot of potential issues with paper ballot electoral systems and they have been cheated and gamed the world over. No... I dont see any of those issues with online voting. At most I think there would be some wrinkles early on. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Argus Posted October 16, 2015 Report Posted October 16, 2015 No theyre opinion on those things is based on ideology and partisanship. Maybe yours is, not mine. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted October 16, 2015 Report Posted October 16, 2015 The only thing that gives a government legitimacy beyond naked force is implied consent of the governed. If not one single person showed up to vote, the government could not claim it represented anybody at all. Indirect democracy is essentially crowd control and if the crowd stops believing it wont work. I disagree. If no one showed that meant everyone was satisfied with the current government and so the implied consent is still there. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Bonam Posted October 16, 2015 Report Posted October 16, 2015 Your example actually shoots down your own theory. Despite the fact we have a government thats always been lead by men, and has been mostly comprised of men, since womens sufferage we have had an unending parade of legislation, results, and decisions that favor women... decisions made for the most part by men. Its a large demographic, and one that politicians actively court. It is of course a large demographic (the majority, in fact), and it is indeed courted to varying extents by male politicians, but it is not properly represented until a considerable fraction of the people in power are actually women. Just ask any feminist and they'll explain it to you, if you disagree And the same would be true for young people, except that by definition young people are still at the beginnings of their careers and have generally not yet amassed the experience and influence needed to get to those positions. Quote
dre Posted October 16, 2015 Report Posted October 16, 2015 (edited) Canada's voter turnout since 1957: Trend of general decline. US voter turnout since the 1800s: Note the general trend of decline from the 50s until 2000 or so, and then increasing voter turnout in the post 9/11 unrest. I've already said I agree with this. That said, we've have threads on this before, and the consensus of the trogdolytes is that it's not "secure enough" to vote online. You are making a factual assertion, attributing causation of a certain phenomenon to something. Do you have any firm evidence to back this up? Heres historical voter turnout based on numbers from stats canada. Heres election results since 18xx. Date of Election or Referendum Previous Census or Population Estimate Number of Registered Voters Electors as % of Population Total Votes Voter Turnout as % Registered Voters Votes Cast as % of Population 7 August & 20 Sept 1867 3,230,000 361,028 11.2 268,387 73.1 8.3 20 July & 12 October 1872 3,689,000 426,974 11.6 318,329 70.3 8.6 22 January 1874 3,689,000 432,410 11.7 324,006 69.6 8.8 17 September 1878 3,689,000 715,279 19.4 534,029 69.1 14.5 20 June 1882 4,325,000 663,873 15.3 508,496 70.3 11.8 22 February 1887 4,325,000 948,222 21.9 724,517 70.1 16.8 5 March 1891 4,833,000 1,113,140 23.0 778,495 64.4 16.1 23 June 1896 4,833,000 1,358,328 28.1 912,992 62.9 18.9 7 November 1900 4,833,000 1,167,402 24.2 958,497 77.4 19.8 3 November 1904 5,371,000 1,385,440 25.8 1,036,878 71.6 19.3 26 October 1908 5,371,000 1,463,591 27.2 1,180,820 70.3 22.0 21 September 1911 7,204,527 1,820,742 25.3 1,314,953 70.2 18.3 17 December 1917 7,591,971 2,093,799 27.6 1,892,741 75.0 24.9 6 December 1921 8,760,211 4,435,310 50.6 3,139,306 67.7 35.8 29 October 1925 8,776,352 4,608,636 52.5 3,168,412 66.4 36.1 14 September 1926 8,887,952 4,665,381 52.5 3,273,062 67.7 36.8 28 July 1930 8,887,952 5,153,971 58.0 3,922,481 73.5 44.1 14 October 1935 10,367,063 5,918,207 57.1 4,452,675 74.2 43.0 26 March 1940 10,429,169 6,588,888 63.2 4,672,531 69.9 44.8 27 April 1942 11,494,627 6,502,234 56.6 4,638,847 71.3 40.4 11 June 1945 11,494,627 6,952,445 60.5 5,305,193 75.3 46.2 27 June 1949 11,823,649 7,893,629 66.8 5,903,572 73.8 49.9 10 August 1953 14,003,704 8,401,691 60.0 5,701,963 67.5 40.7 10 June 1957 16,073,970 8,902,125 55.4 6,680,690 74.1 41.6 31 March 1958 16,073,970 9,131,200 56.8 7,357,139 79.4 45.8 18 June 1962 18,238,247 9,700,325 53.2 7,772,656 79.0 42.6 8 April 1963 18,238,247 9,910,757 54.3 7,958,636 79.2 43.6 8 November 1965 18,238,247 10,274,904 56.3 7,796,728 74.8 42.7 25 June 1968 20,014,880 10,860,888 54.3 8,217,916 75.7 41.1 30 October 1972 21,568,311 13,000,778 60.3 9,974,661 76.7 46.2 8 July 1974 21,568,311 13,620,353 63.1 9,671,002 71.0 44.8 22 May 1979 22,992,604 15,233,653 66.3 11,541,000 75.7 50.2 18 February 1980 22,992,604 15,890,416 69.1 11,015,514 69.3 47.9 4 September 1984 24,343,181 16,774,941 68.9 12,638,424 75.3 51.9 21 November 1988 25,309,331 17,639,001 69.7 13,281,191 75.3 52.5 25 October 1993 27,296,859 19,906,796 72.9 13,863,135 70.9* 50.8 2 June 1997 27,296,859 19,663,478 72.0 13,174,698 67.0 48.3 27 November 2000 28,846,761 21,243,473 73.6 12,997,185 64.1** 45.1 28 June 2004 30,007,094 22,466,621 74.9 13,564,702 60.9 45.2 26 January 2006 31,612,897 23,054,615 72.9 14,908,703 64.7 47.2 14 October 2008 32,976,026 23,677,639 71.8 13,929,093 58.8 42.0 2 May 2011 34,278,400 24,257,592 70.8 14,823,408 61.1 43.2 You are making a factual assertion, attributing causation of a certain phenomenon to something. Do you have any firm evidence to back this up? Just that voter turnout is loosely correlated with a loss of confidence and trust in government. You and Argus are painting this picture that people arent voting because they are happy with government. But its just not factually accurate. People in Canada and the US have less faith and trust in government than at any other time in history. EDIT: Grrr... Why does it keep squishing my table of election results. It looks perfect when I paste it into my post but then it gets scrambled. Edited October 16, 2015 by dre Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Smeelious Posted October 16, 2015 Report Posted October 16, 2015 For some reason I feel like this has turned into one of the best threads in a while. Carry on. Quote
Bonam Posted October 16, 2015 Report Posted October 16, 2015 (edited) Heres historical voter turnout based on numbers from stats canada. Yeah that data is the same as what I posted for the period of 1957 onward. The graph I posted shows the turnout stretched out on the vertical axis so you can see the trend more easily. Anyway, both sets of data agree that turnout has been falling from the 50s to today. You attribute the falling turnout from the 50s on people losing trust in government, I attribute it to people being content with the status quo. You posted a graph showing declining trust in government from 1958 onward. Here's one that shows rising standard of living over the same period (constant 2002 dollars): Here's life expectancy: To me, the data clearly shows that people's lives are getting better, and that has been true continuously since WWII under any and all parties that have been in power. Which party is in power has a minimal effect on most people's lives, and hence they don't bother to vote. This is based on objective facts, as opposed to surveys about "trust in government" which are based on people's subjective opinions and are influenced by baseless media hysteria. Edited October 16, 2015 by Bonam Quote
ToadBrother Posted October 16, 2015 Report Posted October 16, 2015 To me, the data clearly shows that people's lives are getting better, and that has been true continuously since WWII under any and all parties that have been in power. Which party is in power has a minimal effect on most people's lives, and hence they don't bother to vote. This is based on objective facts, as opposed to surveys about "trust in government" which are based on people's subjective opinions and are influenced by baseless media hysteria. I think you're falling into a "correlation implies causation" trap. I think the reasons people don't vote are a bit more complex. I'm sure there is a contingent who figures "Hey, it doesn't matter who wins", the sort of neutral apathy. But I do think there is another group that feels that their vote doesn't matter, that the system is corrupt and it is irrelevant who forms the government. This group I would call the negatively apathetic. There is a point to be made that our electoral system probably creates some level of apathy, and a quick look at the voter turnout in PR countries like Germany and Israel having higher average voter turnout rates than Canada. Ironically, it appears that Switzerland has among the lowest turnout rates, despite certain Libertarian groups believing its form of direct democracy being superior. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/05/06/u-s-voter-turnout-trails-most-developed-countries/ But again, I think we have to be careful of falling into the "correlation implies causation" trap. There could be other causal factors for countries having higher voter turnouts. I would say that it isn't a stretch to assert that FPTP doesn't help voter turnout, but whether moving to another system is going to make a significant difference is something I don't think anyone can fully answer. Looking at New Zealand, I see no evidence that moving to MMP in any way increased voter turnout, and in fact, looking at the figures, it would appear that New Zealand has seen a general overall fall in voter turnout: http://www.elections.org.nz/events/past-events/general-elections-1853-2014-dates-and-turnout Quote
Bonam Posted October 16, 2015 Report Posted October 16, 2015 I think you're falling into a "correlation implies causation" trap. Well, it is the same argument that dre put forth... here's one stat and here's another, one must be causing the other! But I agree, there's no proof that either the cause I claim or the one that dre claims is really what is behind declining turnouts. I think the reasons people don't vote are a bit more complex. I'm sure there is a contingent who figures "Hey, it doesn't matter who wins", the sort of neutral apathy. But I do think there is another group that feels that their vote doesn't matter, that the system is corrupt and it is irrelevant who forms the government. This group I would call the negatively apathetic.There is a point to be made that our electoral system probably creates some level of apathy, and a quick look at the voter turnout in PR countries like Germany and Israel having higher average voter turnout rates than Canada. Ironically, it appears that Switzerland has among the lowest turnout rates, despite certain Libertarian groups believing its form of direct democracy being superior. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/05/06/u-s-voter-turnout-trails-most-developed-countries/ But again, I think we have to be careful of falling into the "correlation implies causation" trap. There could be other causal factors for countries having higher voter turnouts. I would say that it isn't a stretch to assert that FPTP doesn't help voter turnout, but whether moving to another system is going to make a significant difference is something I don't think anyone can fully answer. Looking at New Zealand, I see no evidence that moving to MMP in any way increased voter turnout, and in fact, looking at the figures, it would appear that New Zealand has seen a general overall fall in voter turnout: http://www.elections.org.nz/events/past-events/general-elections-1853-2014-dates-and-turnout I agree with all this. Quote
dre Posted October 16, 2015 Report Posted October 16, 2015 (edited) Yeah that data is the same as what I posted for the period of 1957 onward. The graph I posted shows the turnout stretched out on the vertical axis so you can see the trend more easily. Anyway, both sets of data agree that turnout has been falling from the 50s to today. You attribute the falling turnout from the 50s on people losing trust in government, I attribute it to people being content with the status quo. You posted a graph showing declining trust in government from 1958 onward. Here's one that shows rising standard of living over the same period (constant 2002 dollars): Here's life expectancy: To me, the data clearly shows that people's lives are getting better, and that has been true continuously since WWII under any and all parties that have been in power. Which party is in power has a minimal effect on most people's lives, and hence they don't bother to vote. This is based on objective facts, as opposed to surveys about "trust in government" which are based on people's subjective opinions and are influenced by baseless media hysteria. If a high standard of life directly caused low voter turnout I would expect poor people to vote more. But its the opposite in Canada. Poor people vote in lower numbers and more affluent people (the ones with higher SOL's and longer LE's) vote in higher numbers. So the correlation holds true for western democracies in general, but is actually INVERSE here in Canada. I still have a hard time not seeing the fact that people are just generally think the system is corrupt and have very little confience and trust in it as a bigger factor. But Im sure there are other things in play, and its true I dont have "proof" that any one of them is the biggest causative factor. Edited October 16, 2015 by dre Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Bonam Posted October 16, 2015 Report Posted October 16, 2015 I still have a hard time not seeing the fact that people are just generally think the system is corrupt and have very little confience and trust in it as a bigger factor. But Im sure there are other things in play, and its true I dont have "proof" that any one of them is the biggest causative factor. I think this just fundamentally misreads human nature. When people are unhappy with something, they make that fact heard. They complain, they protest, and if it's something they can vote about, they vote. If people were truly disgusted with the system and the establishment parties, they'd be there voting for the fringe parties that promise radical change. Quote
dre Posted October 17, 2015 Report Posted October 17, 2015 They complain, they protest, and if it's something they can vote about, they vote. If people were truly disgusted with the system and the establishment parties, they'd be there voting for the fringe parties that promise radical change. Except they dont do that, and they arent there. They know fringe parties have zero chance to win. They dont feel like their vote would make a difference, they arent interested in the process as it is. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
TimG Posted October 17, 2015 Report Posted October 17, 2015 (edited) Except they dont do that, and they arent there. They know fringe parties have zero chance to win. They dont feel like their vote would make a difference, they arent interested in the process as it is.It would make a difference in 2 ways: 1) if a fringe party gets a significant share of the vote that tells the other parties that there are people looking for those policies and they vote. You would see movement. 2) if enough people are disillusioned with the main parties then fringe parties can win. My personal opinion some people simply want to make excuses for laziness because in a such a complex society it is impossible for any one person to get a government that does exactly what they want. This means voting requires a willingness to accept compromise. The only real possibilities are compromise by voting for a major party that has combined different voting segments or compromise by voting fringe parties that may represent narrow interests well but will be forced to compromise once in government. I personally think the former leads to better government because the compromises are advertised during elections and not sprung on the public after various backroom deals post election. Edited October 17, 2015 by TimG Quote
Newfoundlander Posted October 17, 2015 Report Posted October 17, 2015 Mandatory voting is dumb. Quote
Icebound Posted October 18, 2015 Report Posted October 18, 2015 In any case if they ARE going to make voting mandatory they should move our electoral system out of the stoneage, and get rid of the lineups, voting booths, etc. People should just be able to log onto the elections candidate, enter an auth. code that the government snail mailed them ahead of time, and vote with a mouseclick or two. Internet security being non-existent, is this a "good" idea? ... Quote
ReeferMadness Posted October 18, 2015 Report Posted October 18, 2015 Internet security being non-existent, is this a "good" idea? I don't consider internet security non-existent but I also don't think that this is necessarily what's going to save voting. First, there is a legitimate concern about knowing who is voting. If you have a married couple and one of them cares about politics and the other doesn't you're going to get one person voting for 2. In some cases you might get a parent voting for adult kids or kids voting for elderly parents. The problem is you don't know for sure who is on the end of the computer. More to the point, if you can't take a half hour to go to vote, are you really going to spend 10 minutes on the computer to vote? Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
eyeball Posted October 18, 2015 Report Posted October 18, 2015 For some reason I feel like this has turned into one of the best threads in a while. Carry on. It's an old debate around here. My sense is that it divides people along a line that's as much biological as ideological. Suggestions to change the electoral system in any way seems to grate on a deeper more primal nerve. I think it speaks to an ancient preference for a rigid top down power and authority structure and anything that put's more power into people's hands pushes hard on their comfort zone. It produces a deeper distress than monkeys might face when some new tougher monkey challenges the old leader. It's more like a when a whole segment of of the troop decide to venture down out of the trees for the first time to explore a wider bigger world on the ground. It drives the more conservative monkey's bananas. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
eyeball Posted October 18, 2015 Report Posted October 18, 2015 To me, the data clearly shows that people's lives are getting better, and that has been true continuously since WWII under any and all parties that have been in power. Which party is in power has a minimal effect on most people's lives, and hence they don't bother to vote. This is based on objective facts, as opposed to surveys about "trust in government" which are based on people's subjective opinions and are influenced by baseless media hysteria. This implies that the government is entirely responsible for organizing and arranging all the effort that's gone into the way of life we enjoy, as if we had nothing to do with it. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Icebound Posted October 19, 2015 Report Posted October 19, 2015 I don't consider internet security non-existent I do: http://www.itworld.com/article/2943112/security/report-every-company-is-compromised-but-most-infections-not-yet-at-critical-stage.html Report: Every company is compromised, but most infections not yet at critical stage ...a recent analysis of a quarter million endpoint devices in 40 enterprises, every single corporate network showed evidence of a targeted intrusion but most of the activity was not yet at the most-dangerous data exfiltration stage. "No matter how small the network we looked at, no matter what industry, we always found some indicators of a targeted attack," said Wade Williamson, director of product marketing at Vectra Networks. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.