# Reasons other than laziness for not voting



## emma42

This is getting off-topic, but, really, there are reasons other than laziness for people not voting.  Perhaps this is for a new thread.


Moderator note:  Thread split from Who is behind US current foreign policy... really?


----------



## cuchuflete

There is almost always one "least bad" candidate.  I maintain that sloth, laziness, and lack of civic responsibility account for most instances of not voting.


----------



## beclija

Even if you don't believe in "least bad" candidates or minor evils in general, you still have the possibility to give an invalid voice (e.g. crossing out all candidates, or something similar). In effect, it does not make much of a difference, since whether your voice is invalid or you don't vote, it won't be counted. But conceptually it is worlds apart: In one case, you do care but cannot combine it with your conscience to vote for any of the candidates, in the other you just don't care, i.e. give up on democracy altogether (and not just the presented candidates).
It's like the difference between "I don't believe in democracy" and "I don't believe in any of these candidates". A major one, in my opinion.


----------



## marxt

emma42 said:


> This is getting off-topic, but, really, there are reasons other than laziness for people not voting. Perhaps this is for a new thread.


I think the "my vote won't make any difference" attitude is a big factor, especially among young people.

The thing is, in the UK, if you live in an mega-safe Conservative constituency (say, a leafy suburb somewhere in South East England) or an equally safe Labour one (like where I live: industrial town, Northern England) then if you want to vote against the grain it's almost like your vote is automatically cancelled out by the majority who always vote for the same party no matter what.

That's why I'm all for proportional representation because I think more people would believe their vote could make an actual difference.


----------



## übermönch

I can see two possible reasons:
absolute worriless happiness
or
the opposite.


----------



## cuchuflete

Marxt,
Last Tuesday lots of Americans in supposedly "safe" and solidly Republican precincts took the trouble to vote, despite the conventional wisdom that their votes would count for nothing.  As a result, some long-serving, well-entrenched Republicans will be out of work in January.   

I don't doubt the truth of your statements, but it's still worth the trouble to vote.  Even majorities take note when the minority candidates attract greater than expected support.


----------



## beclija

marxt said:


> That's why I'm all for proportional representation because I think more people would believe their vote could make an actual difference.


I am all with you. The sad thing is: We do have proportional representation, but recently people brought up the idea of introducing majority vote. Supposedly it leads to a more stable state of affairs. Quite sad. I am quite hopeful, though, that the proposal won't make it.


----------



## roxcyn

I wonder why there is not some type of punishment for not voting.  Don't other countries such as Italy, UK and Australia have some type of punishment such as stamping on IDs "Did not vote" . 

But I think in UK the voting is a little easier, the government automatically registers you to vote, no paper filling out or anything like in USA. 

To explain why not to vote, I knew some people who worked two jobs, one at night (10 PM--6AM) and then one that following (10 AM -- 6 PM) day so they only had a few hours between their jobs to sleep/eat or whatever, so they never did vote.


----------



## beclija

There may be some countries that punish citizens for not voting, but I don't think it is the case in any of those you mentioned. It isn't in Austria either (voting used to be obligatory for presidential elections but not for parliamentary elections, but nowadays it isn't in any case). Participation has recently gone down to 75% (this autumn's parliamentary elections), which is the one of the lowest figures since WW II. People actually find this decrease quite concerning (I am not meaning to say anything about the USA here...).


----------



## marxt

cuchuflete said:


> Marxt,
> Last Tuesday lots of Americans in supposedly "safe" and solidly Republican precints took the trouble to vote, despite the conventional wisdom that their votes would count for nothing. As a result, some long-serving, well-entrenched Republicans will be out of work in January.
> 
> I don't doubt the truth of your statements, but it's still worth the trouble to vote. Even majorities take note when the minority candidates attract greater than expected support.


Hi cuchuflete,
I essentially agree with what you're saying but I guess my opinion is biased by the fact that I've lived all my life in an uber-uber safe Labour constituency where people still voted in their droves for that party despite the fact that the candidate (now MP) had defected from the Conservatives and was once famous for saying "even my butler has a butler" (i.e. a not exactly a socialist).
Maybe this sounds bad but I am certain there will be no change here until all the older generation who vote by tradition (and nothing else) die off.
Until then I hope some changes to the voting system will be implemented.


----------



## beclija

Hi marxt,

you do know that even in a proportional system, a lot of people vote by tradition and nothing else?

I guess if people would have actually checked the parties' programs against their stances, the conservatives ("Volkspartei") would have remained well below 20% instead of the 34% they collected. I personally know people who voted for them, although there opinions are closer to the communist party (1%) than any other candidate.


----------



## ireney

People have fought for the right to vote. People are punsihed by losing their right to vote. 

Anyone who doesn't exercise it must think about it twice. And if he or she decides not to vote he or she must not grumble about the goverment, the stupidity of his/her fellow citizens of [insert country here], the way democracy doesn't work,etc.


----------



## emma42

May I just point out that we _do_ have to register to vote.  It's not done for us by the government!


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

Canadian politicians have adapted their platform for years according to popular vote.  Every time a smaller party gains ground, the larger party steals parts of its platform.

A vote may not change who's in power, but it can definitely change how that power is exercised.


----------



## quitejaded

Not knowing who to vote for.


----------



## beclija

Well, quitejaded, in my opinion that gives you the right to give an invalid vote, but not to not vote.


----------



## marxt

beclija said:


> Hi marxt,
> 
> you do know that even in a proportional system, a lot of people vote by tradition and nothing else?
> 
> I guess if people would have actually checked the parties' programs against their stances, the conservatives ("Volkspartei") would have remained well below 20% instead of the 34% they collected. I personally know people who voted for them, although there opinions are closer to the communist party (1%) than any other candidate.


Hi beclija,
I guess you're right (unfortunately) that some people will always vote by tradition no matter what the electoral system, but I just think that proportional representation is a vastly better system than the one we currently have here... maybe others will disagree.
By the way, I know what you mean about people not even really voting for what they believe in... the current Labour Party are probably more like a far-right party by the standards of 30 years ago, so I don't understand why people who voted for them back then and still consider themselves "true socialists" vote for them today. It seems bizarre to me.



			
				roxcyn said:
			
		

> I wonder why there is not some type of punishment for not voting. Don't other countries such as Italy, UK and Australia have some type of punishment such as stamping on IDs "Did not vote"


Hi roxcyn,
That's definitely not true in the UK because we don't even have ID cards (yet) .


----------



## cuchuflete

> Reasons *other than laziness* for not voting





quitejaded said:


> Not knowing who to vote for.



In my opinion, if one doesn't know who to vote for, it is usually the result of laziness.  It takes relatively little effort to find out who the candidates are, and to make a choice.  When we have finished citing the myriad exceptions, I think that will still be true of most people who don't know who to vote for—they just didn't make much of an effort to get to a decision, even a not very well educated decision to vote a party line.


Registration matters are another case of laziness most of the time.  In most of the US, registration is extremely easy, takes just a few minutes, and can, in many states, be done on election day.


----------



## roxcyn

emma42 said:


> May I just point out that we _do_ have to register to vote.  It's not done for us by the government!



OK, I once had a pen pal from UK and she told me that the government registers you to vote and sends you a card that tells you where to vote and all that.  She even sent me her card which I still have.  However, maybe it is not so, and thank you for correcting me.


----------



## emma42

No, we have to fill out an electoral registration form (this is compulsory), then we are sent a polling card (the card which tells you where to vote etc).  We do not then _have _to vote.  Only one electoral registration form has to be filled out per household, so perhaps your friend's parents completed the form and she never actually saw it.


----------



## invictaspirit

I'm always a little befuddled in my thinking on this issue.

In some ways I like the freedom to not vote I am afforded. It can be seen as a protest vote. In Britain, the 'turn-out' (percentage of the total electorate who voted) is at least starting to rise in most elections, but in the past the media make a great deal out of the percentage who did not.

We also currently live in a country (as do some others) where there is little real choice offered. All our mainstream parties are treading over each others toes in what Europeans would recognise as the liberal/christian democrat centre ground and are what Americans would identify as moderates.  There are no George Bushes or Evo Morales here.  This happens to be fine with me, and a lot of other people, but die-hard socialists or non-racist uber-conservative nationalists have very little choice. Why should they vote? Who should they vote for?

Example: I live in a very affluent constituency (electoral district) where nearly everyone not only has a job, but a good job. It has a very large commuter population. It is surrounded by rich farmland. Our local MP is a famous, very eccentric, national figure who gets a lot of votes because people think she is weird but nice. People around here vote (roughly):

*42%* weird but nice conservative who favours low tax, business, a basic social safety net. Favours more 'green' policies.
*33%* earnest and caring moderate who favours higher tax, a more comprehensive social safety net but who comes from a party that will never get enough votes to form a government. Favours more 'green' policies
*21%* the current government candidate who favours very slightly higher taxes than the conservative and a slightly less basic social safety net. Favours more 'green' policies.
*4%* a candidate who favours far, far more 'green' policies

Who do you vote for in our area if you are a socialist? Who do you vote for if you think global warming in not caused by man? Who do you vote for if you are a racist who hates immigrants? Who do you vote for if you are an old-fashioned Conservative who dislikes the new leftward shift of the Conservative party? In districts like ours, if you are not a moderate, you have no choices...why should you vote?

Having said all of this...people died so that I could vote. I always, always vote. And I am mindful of the work that was done by my antecedant citizens to get the vote. But it's OK for me...I have choices. Others do not.

I should mention that in poorer towns, or big cities, and some other regions the choice is far wider.


----------



## sound shift

One reason for not voting might be a desire to have nothing to do with a system in which only 35% of the votes cast, and 21% of the votes of those entitled to vote, are enough to produce a one-party government with a working majority in parliament.

Another reason might be the belief that whichever party one votes for, all governments follow the agenda of big business.

Another reason (although an extreme one) is the belief that government lends itself to corruption and is therefore illegitimate. People who subscribe to this line often take the view that "the market" is the only true democracy.


----------



## maxiogee

sound shift said:


> One reason for not voting might be a desire to have nothing to do with a system in which only 35% of the votes cast, and 21% of the votes of those entitled to vote, are enough to produce a one-party government with a working majority in parliament.


Then vote for the parties which want to change that. The Lib-Dems are into PR.



> Another reason might be the belief that whichever party one votes for, all governments follow the agenda of big business.


Then join a party which apparently doesn't, and work for it, vote for it and make your voice heard as a member if your voting voice isn't listened to.



> Another reason (although an extreme one) is the belief that government lends itself to corruption and is therefore illegitimate. People who subscribe to this line often take the view that "the market" is the only true democracy.


Well then vote for the party which will give the market more say in how the country is governed.
Does not all human activity lend itself towards corruption? Is not the market the most corrupt form or activity we humans have invented, wherein people who have no direct interest in a commodity can trade in it speculatively, effectively counteracting the normal rhythms and cycles of the true market - that between buyer and seller?


----------



## Brioche

In Australia is it compulsory to register to vote, and compulsory to vote.

Some nitpickers say that it is not compulsory to vote, it is compulsory to go to the polling station, have your name marked off the list, accept a voting slip, and then put it in the box unmarked.

Because it is compulsory, we make it easy to vote. There are lots of polling stations. It doesn't matter where you live, you can vote at any polling station, not just the ones in your electorate. We also have postal votes.

There is a fine if you don't vote.


----------



## emma42

In Britian there is an anarchist organisation called Class War.  This organisation produces many amusing and interesting stickers, one of which pronounces "Don't vote.  It only encourages them"!  I've always liked that one.

I actually do always vote.  I live in a safe Labour constituency.  Our MP is a Blairite through and through, so I don't like him.  There is always a socialist or green candidate here, so I usually lodge a protest vote.

I have to say that, although I have a lot of sympathy with the anarchists (because they are very politically active, and do not simply not bother to do anything), I do vote because, as invictaspirit said, people fought and some died to win me this "right".


----------



## GenJen54

roxcyn said:


> But I think in UK the voting is a little easier, the government automatically registers you to vote, no paper filling out or anything like in USA.
> 
> To explain why not to vote, I knew some people who worked two jobs, one at night (10 PM--6AM) and then one that following (10 AM -- 6 PM) day so they only had a few hours between their jobs to sleep/eat or whatever, so they never did vote.



I like the idea of automatically registering.  That might help increase our voting percentages here.  However, the process here is still not that difficult.  

As to your comment about your friend, were these two part-time jobs, or were either a full-time job?  Federal law requires that employers give their full-time employees two hours off on election day to go vote.

My grandfather-in-law refuses to vote.  He served in WWII and believes that as a veteran, who served time during a war, he has the right not to vote since he has served his country.  I disagree with this and believe everyone should vote.  However, my wish is they would make their choice based on an educated decision.  It is lazy to vote only "party-line" if one has not researched all of the candidates. 

I agree with another poster that more proportional voting would most likely increase voting among those whose vote rarely counts.  I noted in another thread that each U.S. state handles this differently with regard to Presidential elections.  In some states, voting is proportional so one's vote counts towards a percentage of the electorate, regardless of the outcome.  In my state, we have an "all or nothing" proposition.  Whoever wins the popular vote takes the entire electorate, even if the margin of victory was 1% or 2%.

Interestingly, there was a "Don't Vote" campaign here this year, something I had never seen before.   It encouraged people to educate themselves about the issues and ideas and not vote unless they understood who and what they were voting for.


----------



## TrentinaNE

GenJen54 said:


> I like the idea of automatically registering.  That might help increase our voting percentages here.  However, the process here is still not that difficult.


But one still needs to know that it's necessary to do.  Unfortunately, no one told my Italian teacher, who became a citizen late last year.  She showed up at her polling place on Nov. 7, thinking that (as in Italy), she just had to show proof of citizenship and place of residence.  No dice.

I have to say that the U.S. does not make voting particularly citizen-friendly.  Elections take place on a Tuesday (a work-day for most people) and election days are not national holidays.  I also was rather perplexed to learn that in the relatively urban setting where have I lived for about 4 years now (just outside Boston, within a block of a major street and within 2 blocks of two different public transportation lines), my polling place is located .7 mile away and not near public transportation at all.  And once you get there, the place is staffed by the only volunteers who can spare the time on a week-day, who typically are some very old folks that (to put it politely) don't move very fast.  At 7:20 AM, I spent 1 minute in line waiting to vote, and about 15 minutes in line after voting, waiting to turn in my ballot.  If elections were on a weekend, I'd gladly volunteer to help out.  

Elisabetta


----------



## cuchuflete

TrentinaNE said:


> I have to say that the U.S. does not make voting particularly citizen-friendly.


Speaking for Massachusetts, you may be right.  Registration is easy in Maine, and takes about 1 minute!

*How do I register to vote?* 
 You fill out a voter registration card.  There’s a sample card in this brochure with instructions.​ 


 *Where do I go to register?*  
You can register to vote at your town office or city hall, through any Motor Vehicle branch office, in most state & federal social service agencies, or at voter registration drives. ​ Completed voter registration cards may be hand delivered or mailed to your town office or city hall, or sent to the Secretary of State’s Office in Augusta.​ 

 *Is there a deadline for registering? *
*No.* It’s never too late to register to vote in Maine. You can register to vote until, and including, election day. There is no cut-off date for registering to vote in person at your town office or city hall.


http://www.maine.gov/sos/cec/elec/votguid04.htm



​
Around here, and where I used to live, in Connecticut, if you needed a ride to a polling place, any of the parties would provide a volunteer driver!

15 or 20 minutes, once every year or two, doesn't seem like an unreasonable amount of time to spend voting.


----------



## TrentinaNE

cuchuflete said:


> Around here, and where I used to live, in Connecticut, if you needed a ride to a polling place, any of the parties would provide a volunteer driver!


But why should this be necessary in a place that is well-served by public transportation?  There are churches and synogogues that could be used as polling places that are much closer to my house (and to public transportation) than the grade school that is my designated voting location.  Ah, well, I shouldn't be asking you, but rather my local election board. 



> 15 or 20 minutes, once every year or two, doesn't seem like an unreasonable amount of time to spend voting.


In some places, it can take much longer.  But my point is: why not take simple steps to make it even easier, such as having elections on the weekend, or making election day a national holiday?  I've been told these are standard practices in many other democracies.  And for a single parent who has to get a child to school or day-care as well as herself to work, it could make a lot of difference.

Elisabetta (always looking for more efficient ways to do things   )


----------



## quitejaded

beclija said:


> Well, quitejaded, in my opinion that gives you the right to give an invalid vote, but not to not vote.


You would rather someone vote on a whim than not vote at all? I wouldn't.


----------



## beclija

No, and I never said that. But I'd rather have people who find their beliefs incompatible with voting for any of the candidates express their disgust by throwing a blank (or all crossed-out) slip into the ballot, instead of demonstrating disinterest by not caring to go there at all.


----------



## GenJen54

beclija said:


> No, and I never said that. But I'd rather have people who find their beliefs incompatible with voting for any of the candidates express their disgust by throwing a blank (or all crossed-out) slip into the ballot, instead of demonstrating disinterest by not caring to go there at all.



In the U.S., depending upon the voting system (they vary from state to state), any ballot the intentions of which are not clear (such as blank or "all-crossed-out" ballots), are automatically "thrown out" of the system.  

In my state, this would result in: a) a back-log in the line of other well-intentioned voters who are not able to cast their own ballots because the machine has to be recalibrated to accommodate for the one which was not filled out properly, and b) waste of time for volunteer election officials, other voters, and the voter him/herself.

If the voting system is based on paper ballots, this may prove more effective, as the ballot would simply be tossed out after the ballots have all been cast, during the counting process.  

I agree with your idea in principle, but see its practice (at least regarding most voting systems in the U.S.) as rude and disrespectful to those who are voting for genuine reasons.


----------



## ElaineG

Here in Brooklyn, I can easily spend 2 hours waiting to vote during a Presidential election and about half that time in a mid-term election.  It would probably be different if I could go during the day, but as I don't work near my home, the options are before work, or after work, just like everyone else.

When I lived in Italy, I thought the idea of weekend elections with voting spread over two days was genius.  In some places in Florida (and probably else where), they've started early voting -- where you can cast your vote before Election Day.  Again, I think that's genius.  

Living in New York City of late, my vote rarely "counts" -- the margins are always beyond safe in favor of the Democratic candidate.  Nor (in my voting life time at least) has there been any risk of NY's electoral votes going Republican.  

Given those margins, on some recent election days, I have decided that my "election" time was better spent elsewhere.  In '00, I spent the day in Washington working at a national hotline organized by a non-profit to collect info on and coordinate response to voting problems -- as you can imagine it was a busy busy day!  In '04, I spent Election Day in Florida, as part of a team addressing any legal issues that arose in Tampa. 

The first time, I tried to get an absentee ballot, there were hassles and delays and my ballot ended up arriving too late.  The second time, I didn't bother.  However close the election may have been, NY was never the issue.

That said, I don't know that there is a civic "duty" to vote.  It's quite hard for third-party candidates to get on the ballot here, and the American system is structured so as to make any such third-parties nearly entirely irrelevant (except as spoilers).  The choice between Republican and Democrat is not one that excites a lot of people -- and in fact, it can be morally repugnant to vote for either one.  While I sympathize with the idea that the freedom to vote is an important one, I also believe that the freedom not to associate yourself with ideas you don't believe in is worth something.

What if I lived in Virginia or Pennsylvania and had the choice between voting for one of two conservative misogynists for the U.S. Senate?  Should I hold my nose and say that one is "less bad"?  In this election, given the national issues at stake, I probably would have.  In another election, I doubt I could have brought myself to vote for either one.


----------



## beclija

GenJen54 said:


> If the voting system is based on paper ballots, this may prove more effective, as the ballot would simply be tossed out after the ballots have all been cast, during the counting process.
> 
> I agree with your idea in principle, but see its practice (at least regarding most voting systems in the U.S.) as rude and disrespectful to those who are voting for genuine reasons.


I never had to do with anything other than paper ballots. They do have their advantages... we don't tend to spend weeks on counting, recounting and controlling the software either.


----------



## maxiogee

TrentinaNE said:


> But why should this be necessary in a place that is well-served by public transportation?  There are churches and synogogues that could be used as polling places that are much closer to my house (and to public transportation) than the grade school that is my designated voting location.  Ah, well, I shouldn't be asking you, but rather my local election board.



Where *do* people vote in our multifarious countries?
Here in Ireland when an election is called the local primary schools get three days off as the setting up and taking down of the polling-booths (shoddily knocked-out frames with sides and a ledge!) takes a day before and a day after the polling day itself. Other public buildings can be used when schools are few and far between, but generally the majority of polling-stations are schools.


----------



## TrentinaNE

The two locations where I have voted since moving to Massachusetts 11 years ago have been primary schools.  Classes have been in session each time I've voted -- which also make it difficult to park one's car, as the parking lot (if there even is one) is full of teachers' cars and other spaces have to be left free for school busses to pull in, and you have to be careful not to run kids over.    The "precinct" has been set up in the school gymnasium.

When I lived briefly in the city of Chicago, my polling place was a vacant condominium unit about two blocks from where I lived.  When I was a child in Illinois, my church's basement was a polling place. 

I seem to have blocked out the years that I lived in Peoria.


----------



## GenJen54

When I lived in Florida, I believe I voted in a school gymnasium, or community center of some sorts.  To be perfectly honest, I don't completely recall.

In my state, however, to my knowledge, every polling place is in a church.  Go figure.


----------



## emma42

Trentiane, much of Maine is very rural, and public transport systems inadequate, to say the least.


----------



## papillon

And how about $1 000 000 for your vote? Yes, I am speaking about a proposal in Arizona, which if passed, would have awarded this amount to one randomly chosen voter. The money would have come from unclaimed lottery funds.

Talk about attracting exactly the kind of people who _shouldn't_ be voting...


----------



## emma42

Mon Dieu, papillon, that is appalling!


----------



## TrentinaNE

emma42 said:


> Trenti*n*a*NE*, much of Maine is very rural, and public transport systems inadequate, to say the least.


I know, so are parts of Massachusetts and virtually every other state, and people make accommodations for that.  But the suburb of Boston where I live is not rural and does have abundant public transportation, so it seems odd at best and foolish (or deliberately obtuse) at worst not to situate polling places where people can take advantage of those resources.  The point I appear to be laboring to convey is: why make voting any more difficult than it needs to be?  

Elisabetta


----------



## roxcyn

GenJen54 said:


> As to your comment about your friend, were these two part-time jobs, or were either a full-time job? Federal law requires that employers give their full-time employees two hours off on election day to go vote.


 
He worked two full time jobs, if he was given the time, then he didn't go.


----------



## caballoschica

palomnik said:


> There is mistrust, and there is mistrust.  While a lot of what you say can be found anywhere - given the human condition - in general Americans tend not to distrust their institutions tremendously, at least in comparison with other nations.
> 
> Americans tend not to trust each other very much, though.



I agree that Americans tend not to trust each other.  

I think that Americans tend to distrust their institutions quite a lot, though.  And that,  I think leads to apathy, rather than action, so it doesn't appear as if people mistrust their institutions.  People feel a disconnect to their government here.  If they felt a connection, they would vote.  Our turn-out is only about half the entire population for a reason - apathy and/or mistrust.  I can't remember the statistics from my political science class last year, but the trust level with politicians is very very low.  

Why do people not vote here? 
1)  What's it got to do with me? Why should I care?
2)  Politics? That corrupt, evil thing? I don't want to get involved.
3)  I don't like either candidate.  I don't trust any politician.
4)  Politicians don't care about me.  Why should I care about them?


----------



## Etcetera

caballoschica said:


> I think that Americans tend to distrust their institutions quite a lot, though. And that, I think leads to apathy, rather than action, so it doesn't appear as if people mistrust their institutions. People feel a disconnect to their government here. If they felt a connection, they would vote. Our turn-out is only about half the entire population for a reason - apathy and/or mistrust. I can't remember the statistics from my political science class last year, but the trust level with politicians is very very low.
> 
> Why do people not vote here?
> 1) What's it got to do with me? Why should I care?
> 2) Politics? That corrupt, evil thing? I don't want to get involved.
> 3) I don't like either candidate. I don't trust any politician.
> 4) Politicians don't care about me. Why should I care about them?


Are you speaking about America or... Russia? 
Things are exactly the same here!


----------



## caballoschica

Oh, speaking of turn-out, I might as well add, we only get half the country to vote during presidential elections.  It's about a third that vote in local elections.  

It's really too bad because it affects the candidates that are elected.  Oh my I could go off on this.  I wrote an entire essay on it last year.   

Basic points:
1) The people who do vote are (in general)
a) They care and why?
ii)  They have the most extreme views.  Far-right or far-left.  
iii)activists.  Which means they are involved in one issue or another strongly.
iv) Have a strong association with their government because they have a strong association with one party or the other.  

2) This affects the choices because only the people who feel a strong connection with a party will vote in the primaries.  So those people will be far-right or far-left.  Thus, they'll choose far-right or far-left candidates.  

3) This alienates the center because they have a choice between two extremes. Thus, the center doesn't want to vote. The people who do, are the people who are extreme in their views and a few others that feel it's their civil duty.  

That's the short of it.


----------



## Venezuelan_sweetie

caballoschica said:


> Oh, speaking of turn-out, I might as well add, we only get half the country to vote during presidential elections. It's about a third that vote in local elections. (...)This alienates the center because they have a choice between two extremes. Thus, the center doesn't want to vote. The people who do, are the people who are extreme in their views and a few others that feel it's their civil duty.


 
Well, take a ride to the South, and you won't feel alone in your view anymore... It's pretty much the same down here. Those who did vote las December 3rd were like:
-Chavistas: "We have to give the blood of our hearts to protect the _Revolution_, and we will take away the blood of the other ones who want to threaten it!!!"
-Opositores: "We have to take this insane man out of Miraflores (our White House?) and get rid of those who follow him by whatever necessary means, before it is too late and we all die in a famine, a war, or a nationwide riot!!!"

That's why most people preferred to stay home, having popcorns and watching satellite TV.

(Note: I'm just generalizing... No offense intended)



palomnik said:


> Caballoschica, as far as politicians go, I just quit a job working for a state government here for eight years, where I was in constant contact with elected officials...and their staff, and their publicists. After that experience I, for one, will never trust an elected official again as long as I live.


 
My case: the other way around. I decided to quit a job I had a while ago, when all this politic stuff started getting serious. The reason? Most private companies hate the current government, and some of them pressure their employees to be "antichavistas", go to the "marchas", vote against the President, and so on. Me, being as neutral as I am, would not stand it, so I left.

The point is: I think mistrust is sort of justified in this world, especially in the Western hemisphere (because it's the one I know, Ok? It would be interesting to hear an Eastern's opinion!  )


----------



## caballoschica

It's a vicious cycle isn't it?  The politicians are there for awhile, get corrupt, the people don't trust the politicians, less vote, the politicians won't listen to the people who don't vote, which appears even more un-trustworthy, and the politicians get corrupt because the people don't care, and that alienates people further....

For example, if more of us college students voted, they might take into consideration tuition rates in their policies.  They just don't care about our generation because, as a whole, we don't vote.  Except for here.  We get probably 90+% voting here (out of 1600 students).  We were known for it in 2004.  

I wonder if turn-out is related to trust?  In Australia, do people trust their leaders?  I know the turn out is high, but I also realize that it's mandatory to vote.


----------



## Etcetera

caballoschica said:


> In Australia, do people trust their leaders? I know the turn out is high, but I also realize that it's mandatory to vote.


The Australians are lucky, then. 
Here in Russia, the was not so long ago a new law that stated that every citizen should vote. Well, of course, it has caused a huge uproar, and many people said that if so, they surely wouldn't vote. No matter what the punishment would be.


----------



## Brioche

caballoschica said:


> I wonder if turn-out is related to trust? In Australia, do people trust their leaders? I know the turn out is high, but I also realize that it's mandatory to vote.


 
In Australia, it is compulsory to vote, and it is also easy to vote.

Elections are on Saturdays, and there are lots of polling stations. Polling stations are usually at schools and church halls. I usually walk to the polling station.

You can vote at _any_ polling station, not just the ones in your district. 

If you find it difficult to get to a polling station, or you are unwell &c, you can apply in advance, and get a postal ballot.

The staff at polling stations are all paid officials, employed for the election by the Electoral Commission. Everything is handled very efficiently.


----------



## maxiogee

Brioche said:


> You can vote at _any_ polling station, not just the ones in your district.



Now *that's* feckin' intelligent!

In this country people don't 'leave home' for years - even after they've left home and gone to college. 
It is common practice for students in a university to be living 80 or more kilometres from home.
It is common practice for these people not to register to vote in the constituency in which they are living.
It is common practice for daddy to register them 'back home'.

It is a fact that polling day in Ireland is always on either a Tuesday/Wednesday/Thursday.

It is a perpetual moan of the student that they have been disenfranchised by 'adults' who don't arrange polling day for a day when they might have a chance of being 'back home'.

ALL sides are to blame for this.
Politicians for not doing something to make voting childishly easy
Students for not registering in the constituencies where they are living
"Daddy" for facilitating their offspring in thinking they have a vote they will be able to cast.

If Australia can do this - with a population density of 2 people per sq. kilometre, surely it is not beyond the wit of the Irish civil service to make it happen here where our population density is 51 per sq. kilometre. We're only talking of less than 4 million total population - one quarter of whom where below voting age.

How difficult can it be nowadays to efficiently run an election with only 3 million voters?


----------



## mytwolangs

cuchuflete said:


> I maintain that sloth, laziness, and lack of civic responsibility account for most instances of not voting.


 
Do not forget my main reason - I don't want to get picked for Jury duty.


----------



## roxcyn

mytwolangs said:


> Do not forget my main reason - I don't want to get picked for Jury duty.



I wonder why not .


----------

