That's some political-level wordsmithing there GMC  :)  Clearly you're passionate about this topic - I'd say the emotional payoff for you to vote is certainly there, even if I believe the practical ones are non-existant.

That's because when intelligent people vote, we get intelligent results.  Unfortunately, the converse is true, too.  You strike me as being intelligent, which means your vote is important.

That the new chair of the environment committee is also an author of a book about 'debunking' global warming does tell me we need more educated voters.

In a way, I wonder if that isn't the better perspective to take. Yes, one voter is a mote in the water. But activists who manage to push hundreds or thousands of voters (or working in a team who can push hundreds of thousands) do make measurable differences--as long as they are successful in motivating those people to follow the activist and put out the vote. If the activist is out there and most people respond 'why bother'--yeah, that's not changing anything.

I'd say that's another shot in the arm for lobbyists from my perspective.  Rather than voting.

First of all, you have your terms wrong.  Lobbyists go after elected officials, and try and sway them.  They don't have much to do with the popular vote.  That's kind of a nitpick, but the difference is important.

Activists are the ones who try and get people to vote.  Largely because most elections depend on voter turnout-- the side that gets more people voting tends to win.  Corporate money can influence this, by buying a lot of advertising, but it doesn't always work.

If you look at the history of elections in the past 60 years or so, you'll see that about 40% always votes Republican, no matter what.  About 40% always vote Democrat. So, it's the 20% "undecided" voters who win elections.  That's assuming they vote, of course-- otherwise, it comes down to which side gets more people to the polls.

That's why voting, and activism, is so important.  It takes fewer votes than you think to turn an election.  That's why not only do activists try and get their side to the polls, but sometimes they'll try to convince the other side to stay home.  In effect, you're still voting when you stay home-- only this time, someone else decides where your vote goes.

You're right, my mistake.  I misread that post and thought he was referring to lobbyists.

Lobbyists do both. Classic lobbyists move only to the politicians, but realistically, lobby groups also push adverts, activate people, run voter drives, etc. ACORN, NRA, Planned Parenthood, etc. all push people to vote (in their way).

This still strikes me as an interesting topic. I know that you're the only representative for the "non-voter" side, Doulos, so I thank you for your continued participation.



On the "time" issue, I simply don't believe that you lack the sufficient time to vote. If you valued voting, you would almost certainly make time for it, so I don't believe that this is a viable excuse. I think that you simply do not value voting, since you'd rather be "playing video games...Or sleeping...Or drinking coffee and enjoying the day," because, "All of those actions provide real enjoyment to my life and voting does not." Thus, I think this is the point that we should be focusing on: the reasons for which you don't value voting.



I seriously doubt that you actually live your life in this fashion. Why not simply have food delivered to your doorstep, rather than go to the grocery store, then? Why drive to work, when you can work from home? We all make little risks every day-- it's part of being human.

Furthermore, simply fill out a mail-in ballot-- problem solved.



Of course it is, but that's irrelevant-- voting doesn't require that you be familiar with every possible nuance of the political spectrum, such that you could teach a course at the university level. It doesn't take too much brain power to consider if one is either in favor of "pro-choice," or "pro-life;" gay marriage or not; higher taxes or not; etc. While these issues are surely more complex, no one is asking that you become an expert on any of them. I tend to believe that human beings are competent enough to know their own preferences, and that enough should empower you to vote.

With regards to what candidates support what, there are a plethora of online resources available. I completed my mail-in ballot in about twenty minutes, using the League of Women Voters tool, which impartially outlined the stance of every politician in my area (since I was unfamiliar with them, having moved).



In other words, you believe that your representatives will not act upon their promises. While it is true that voters may not get everything they want from their elected official, it is patently absurd to suggest that politicians will "rarely" act in the interests of their constituents. After all, they wouldn't continue to be re-elected, right?



Lobbyists are usually mere citizens like you and me. Politicians are happy to confess that their positions will respond to lobby pressure, and it's true. You have the power to lobby your politicians, just as anyone else does, but the difference is that most people will not. While I've never gotten a personal reply to a letter I've written for a politician, my voice was still heard. Lobbying is almost a kind of informal voting, in which politicians get to see how badly people really care about certain issues. Sure, people vote, but lobbying an extra step that most people simply do not take. However, it has an enormous impact on politicians, and rightfully so.

While corporations have their own lobbyists as well, you shouldn't underestimate the power of citizen lobbying for a cause you believe in. Politicians aren't experts on everything, and need their citizens to help inform them on important issues; they have a whole team of staff that works around the clock to interpret and summarize expert advice, or even the advice of an emotional parent, or a passionate school teacher. Your voice does matter, but only if you make it heard.



If your happiness has zero connection to politics, than you're arguing that none of the issues matter to you. After all, no matter the outcome, you could honestly care less. If that is really the truth, then you're right-- there really is no reason for you to vote. However, I simply find it hard to believe that you don't even have an opinion on political issues. Do you pay taxes? Do you care about the curriculum of our children? Are you a feminist? Are you in favor of war, or against? The list goes on and on. Politics affects your life, even if "far less than most people might assume;" however, I think that politics actually affects your life in more ways than you realize.



Here is another piece of rationale that I picked out, though it ties into your third and fifth points. It seems to me that your position also relies upon the notion that there is little to no distinction between our representatives (or, rather, what they might do if elected). While this is certainly true for certain issues (and in certain races), it is not true for all of them. While I myself did not vote for any particular judge (since I believe that either candidate could do the job), I voted in favor of other candidates that actually had significant differences of political opinion.

I wonder if you don't see any differences because there are no issues that matter to you. If so, then like I said before: you probably shouldn't vote. However, if you're not completely apathetic to the outcome of political elections (which would first, of course, force you to admit that the outcomes themselves matter, even though you've argued against that notion), then you really should have a vested interest in the political process.

Some groups do both lobbying and voter activisim,  The thing to realize is that they're separate goals, with separate methods.  They're not mutually exclusive, but you can't call them the same thing either.

I have time enough in my life to do anything, so in that sense you're correct.  I only mean that since I consider the payoff to participate in the act of voting to be zero, any time spent above zero is too much.



Agreed.  I am willing to take little risks as long as I perceive that there is a certain benefit to it (eating the pizza, the social aspect of work etc).  In the case of voting there is a perception of zero benefit to me, so I am willing to take exactly that much risk to participate in that action.



I could get a paper cut!  This seems silly, but going back to the previous point, if the benefit is exactly zero then any effort above zero is too much.



I'm not certain you wouldn't get some push back from people on this.  All of the time I hear from people about how the uninformed, or the poorly informed, should not vote.  The tricky part is the line of 'how informed is enough' is different for everyone.

What muddies the waters even more is that I wonder if someone who did zero research and just voted based on the colour of t-shirt would get more respect from the average vote supporters than someone who does not vote.  I could be wrong on that count though.

Also, I think you've touched on one of the things I take issue with in politics as well.  I realized over time that the massive hot button issues were many times not really on the table despite the air time they were given.  Abortion, or gay marriage was given so much attention in some of these elections and seen as dividing marks between certain political parties, but in reality, neither party was really interested in dealing with that particular issue one way or another.



I agree, the word rarely is probably not correct, as pointed out earlier in this discussion.  In and of itself, this may not be the strongest reason not to vote, but when mixed in with the all of the other ones it seems to just add to the frustration level.

However, I do not think politicians need to do what they say they will to get elected, particulary since great numbers of people will vote along party lines no matter what that party member does.



This got me thinking, and I guess you're right.  Politics does have an affect on my life.  Perhaps I can only say that there is an inverse relation between my own enjoyment of life and my own involvement in politics.  So, yes, politics is always going to have an affect on things I care about, but I can enjoy those things more if I can stay away from the politics themselves.  If that makes any sense.




I must admit that part of my reluctance to really be too passionate about some of these things is the fact that my own beliefs and stances have changed so drastically over time.

I used to be a politically engaged, conservative Christian in full time ministry who wouldn't watch R-Rated movies, was vehemently opposed to gay marriage and Harry Potter, and subscribed heavily to Just War.

Now I'm an agnostic who is totally pro gay marriage who is reading Harry Potter to his kids in the evenings, doesn't engage with politics at all, and can really get down with a well done movie, even if it's R-rated!  I even went through a time where I thought pacifism was the way to (but have sort of edged away from that a bit as of late).

When your own deeply held beliefs become so radically altered you start holding things very lightly, and voting, political discussions about hot button topics, and arguments over whether Rowling is turning today's youth into witches just don't seem as important any more.  I still have those discussions, just as I am having this discussion here, but most of the real important stuff seems to happen on the personal level these days.  The beauty of this is that perhaps one day I'll see a reason to vote again, because 'Hey - I've basically radically altered a great deal of the other beliefs in my life - why not this one yet again!'

This part I can totally understand. It isn't so much a question of researching politics, but experiencing life.

Oddly enough, that's why your vote is so important!

Like I said earlier, the important votes are the swing voters-- people who can see both sides of a debate, and vote as they see fit.  The vast majority of people only vote along party lines-- whatever the Republicans or Democrats say they should vote for, they vote for.  So, the votes of the intelligent, thoughtful people who actually consider the issues really matters.

See, this is a much better reason for not voting.  I could be very sympathetic to the position that "I'm not sure I'll want the same thing next year as I do right now," position, and if that's your main reason for not voting, I'm much more okay with it.

BUT...

It does sort of raise two issues:
1.  It sort of undermines or conflicts with your "my vote doesn't matter" argument.  If your vote doesn't matter, why does it matter that you don't know for sure what you'll want next year?  I'd say that's a good thing, though.  The "my vote doesn't matter" argument is the one that people don't like, in large part because it's not true.  So using this argument instead of that one is a big improvement.

2.  The original question was about how people react when you complain about elected officials if you don't vote.  And in that case, I think this doesn't help.  Not knowing what you'll want may be a better reason not to vote, but it's also a pretty good reason not to complain afterwords.  To understand why it rubs people the wrong way when you complain after not voting, you need to realize that you were given a chance to actually do something about it, and you passed up the chance.  When you complain after the fact, it's sort of just bellyaching.  It's like someone asking you "what would you like to eat?" and you say "I don't care, give me whatever." And they say "okay, how 'bout a pizza?  You like pizza?"  and you say "yeah, whatever, I really don't care at all."  And they say "well, it's pepperoni, is that' okay?  it's a bit spicy?"  And you say "really, I don't care at all.  I'll eat whatever you give me."  And they say "okay, pepperoni pizza it is!".  Then the pizza shows up, and you try it, and don't like it, and say "uggh!  This is horrible!  I can't stand pizza!  And pepperoni?!  Uggh, I don't like spicy meats.  I mean, spicy meat is just gross!  Nasty food ya got here, really."  The problem isn't that you don't like it, it's that you had a chance to say you didn't like it when it would have been useful to do so.  But you pointedly passed up the chance to make your preferences clear when you had the chance.  Complaining about it after saying "yeah, I don't care, give me whatever," isn't helpful, and it's a bit rude.  Complaining about elected officials after pointedly not voting is pretty similar.  At least if you say "I'd like a salad," and they bring you a pizza, you have a decent reason to complain.  But if you say "gimme whatever you want to give me," you sort of lose the (moral) right to complain when they give it to you.

Put another way:  it's fine to not have an opinion, or to not trust your opinion enough to do anything about it.  But if you complain, you're sending the message that you do have an opinion, and that you want people to react to it.  And in that case, the appropriate thing to do with your opinion is to vote with it (ie, to make it known at the time when it can actually make a difference).

When you agree to the system, and agree that voting is the way you will participate in the decision making process, and then have the audacity to complain about the outcome when you were part of it all makes no sense to me.

It rubs me the wrong way when people complain after voting, so I guess both sides feel the same way!

People complain when they don't vote, so there's not much difference there.

Think of it like the activism you espouse.  Someone who volunteers one day per year might not make that much of a difference, in the grand scheme of things.  But they do make a difference, and they do a lot more than someone who never volunteers at all.  One vote does make a difference, and it makes a lot more difference than someone who doesn't vote.

Yes, people complain when they don't vote.  By not voting they are not (by default) shrugging their shoulders and saying they don't care.  That's an assumption that seems to be made at times, and yes, at times that could be why people don't vote.

However, there are lots of reasons people may actively 'choose' not to vote.  It's intentional, and could be for all sorts of reasons.  If you intentionally take yourself out of the system and say 'Voting is not a good idea' then in my perspective you actually have more right than the voters (who agreed to the system) to complain about the what comes out of the voting situation.

Now, this is really all theoretical, and I am only defending the theoretical right to complain for non-voters.  In practice I don't see much point in voters or non-voters complaining.  All of us would be better off directing our energies to much more useful pursuits!

True enough, although that is the end effect.


That makes no sense.

There are different levels of contribution.  Voting is the simplest and easiest, and it can effect great change.  Activism is a further step: in addition to voting, you donate time or money trying to get the message out, helping get others to vote, and so on.  Organizing activists is a step beyond that.  You can argue over where candidacy fits in this spectrum, but it definitely belongs on this list as well.

So, each vote represents someone trying to make a difference.  As small as each vote might mean, at least they are trying to make a difference.  People who don't vote, but complain, are akin to people who complain endlessly about how something should be done, but never do anything to make it happen.

Volunteering is all about "Doing something".  You don't sit around and talk about doing good, you get up and do something.  The actions might be small and partly symbolic, but they are real action nonetheless.  Voting is the easiest step of this, but even so, it is positive action.  So, in a way, saying "voting is not a good idea" is a lot like saying "doing something positive is not as good idea", which is why it does not follow.

I disagree.  Only from your perspective, but not theirs.



We still don't agree on that point, that it can actually effect change, so that's where we differ.

The rest of your perspective stems from that initial point, which we don't agree on, so that's where the disconnect is between the two sides.

As I've said before, I can appreciate the voter's perspective, but I don't personally share it.  I don't view those who vote as lesser citizens, even though I feel they are performing a suboptimal choice by voting (according to my own understading).  They just choose to be citizens in a different way from me.  It would be nice if the reverse could also be true from a voter's perspective, but I've come to realize that won't happen, and that's ok as well.

In reply to Doulos (msg # 165):

Ok, I'll try and restate.

You indicated that you see voting as less effective than volunteerism, aka actually doing something.  The first problem is that voting is doing something, however small.  We might not come to an agreement on that point, though.

The second point is that they're not mutually exclusive.  You can vote and volunteer, and many people do.  Logically, those people must be making a bigger contribution than volunteering alone.  So, if you really want to make a difference, you'd do both.

The third point is that votes do make a difference.  Swing voters and voter turnout decide elections.  For example, you said 75% of the people in your locale didn't vote.  If they had all turned out for one candidate or issue, they could have swung the election in their favor.

My choice to clean up a park on voting day is actually silly now that I've thought about it more and I think I'm going to stop doing it.  Any action is better than voting, so I think it actually sends the wrong messages (guilt, or something else perhaps) when I go and clean up a park as a replacement action.  It sort of legitimizes voting in a way.

I agree that voting and volunteering are not mutually exclusive.  Neither are volunteering and playing video games.  Or volunteering and drinking coffee.  The whole discussion comes down to a fundamental difference of opinion on whether the act of voting has any value to me personally at all.  I say it doesn't and you say it does.  From there our paths diverge.

Just because something doesn't have any value to you personally, doesn't mean it doesn't have value to society as a whole.

For example, taxes.  Nobody likes taxes, and I don't know a single person who thinks doing their own taxes is a valuable way to spend time.  However, taxes do have a lot of value to society, and the ability to have a functional government.  They're pretty much a necessity.  Voting is similar, except you get to choose where your vote goes.

Can't say I really see the connection between taxes and voting.

First, taxes are used to directly provide services for me.  All of my taxes?  No.  But always at least some.

Second, even if there was no benefit from taxes, there would still be an incentive for paying them, in the form of not wanting to go to prison.

So if not voting was illegal you'd vote?

In that case I'd probably be forced to go spoil a ballot, yes.  Hooray for democracy forcing you to exercise your freedom right Australia?

1.  Voting determines what services you get, at least in part.

2.  Not everyone pays taxes either.  Many corporations pay very little, if at all.  Some people have tax attorneys and specialists reduce their taxes to near-nothing.  And, of course, some people are so poor, they're not just tax-free, they get a credit every year.  Since many working adults don't pay taxes, and don't go to prison, it's not a useful example.