Why do so few Americans vote?

[Mersadeon]

Wait - waaiiiit - from what I read here, you don't have the option to vote by letter? WHAT? I thought that was normal in every democracy! If I can't make it or just can't be bothered to go where I have to in order to vote, I can just use this handy form the state sent me, send it back saying I wanna vote by letter, and then they send me an envelope and the voting form.

 

[Vivi22]

I imagine more people would vote if there was some choice on the ballot and their vote actually mattered. And when I say their vote doesn't matter, I say that because money matters more. It's the people with the money who lobby en masse, buy candidates with massive campaign donations, and even write the laws that get passed. And this is to say nothing of the two year long media spectacle that presidential elections are. I suspect they may be purposely designed and covered to promote voter apathy.

 

[Legion]

"If you choose not to decide YOU STILL HAVE MADE A CHOICE!" - Rush

I am not sure if such an option is available in other countries, but in the UK you can vote for none of the options. While to some that may seem pointless as you may as well save time and not do it, it sends the message that you have no support for any of the candidates. Whereas if you don't vote at all it could be considered for many different reasons such as being too busy unavailable to. Voting against either on the other hand makes it clear that neither party is favourable.

If everybody who didn't think it was worth voting opted to vote for none of the options, politicians might start to rethink their attitudes, especially in countries with a lower general turnout.

 

[Shdwrnr]

I think a big reason is that because the United States uses a "first-past-the-post" system that ensures that the majority is ruled by the whims of the minority, most feel disillusioned or lack a sense of agency. CGP Grey did a fantastic series of videos discussing this as well as the effects of gerrymandering and other foibles of our political system. I strongly recommend them to anyone interested.

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL7679C7ACE93A5638

 

[spartan231490]

There are as many reasons as there are people who don't vote. A lot it has to do with voting being in the middle of the week and no time off. A lot of it has to do with neither party doing anything to help the average voter, and a lot of it has to do with corrupt and lying politicians so no one really knows what they're voting for until after it's in office.

 

[Ashadowpie]

im Canadian and i dont vote either. there is nothing good to vote for. just like "Highschool Student Presidents" they make bold promises and lie to get your votes. its all bullshit and i wont by into that. i do plan to vote next time though, but for Green Peace. now so they can be Prime minister since they suck. but to make Canada more eco friendly and create good jobs now evil jobs like the Alberta's Oil Sands. * shakes fist *

 

[kasperbbs]

I'm not an American and i don't vote, mostly because all options are bad anyway. Everyone makes wonderful promises and gives fancy speeches, but when the time comes to deliver all you get are excuses and even more bad shit being thrown your way. I just can't take it seriously anymore, some of those politicians join dance shows and others get accused of stealing large amounts of tax payer money and get away with it.

 

[Nimcha]

I don't necessarily think a two-party system is all that bad. In my country we have like 10 parties in parliament, and because of our system of 'every vote counts' it means we always having to settle for coalitions that can't take any hard decisions for fear of being voted out next time.

Right now we have the right wing Liberal party governing together with the Labour party. Go figure.

 

[Ashley Blalock]

I vote but I know it's meaningless.

A two party system thanks to the crazy amount of money and the well oiled political team it takes to get elected. No way a third party can afford a chance in US elections. Then all the fun of a primary system where you have to appeal to the most insane members of your base to make it to the general election leaving all the people in the middle with picking the lesser of two evils instead of the best person for the job.

Gerrymandered voting districts just add to the fun so you can get lumped in with people who live in a very different part of the state just so one party can have an advantage over the other. And the super fun of a winner take all system of the presidential election so if you live in a really red or blue state and you vote the other other way you've only wasted your time that day. As someone else pointed out only a few state really matter in the election so screw you if you aren't in one of the important swing states.

But even if your choice does make it in good luck getting anything positive for you out of them. The people in office only really care about the people who bankroll their election. Poor, the working poor, and the middle class just aren't important compared to the people writing those fat checks or buying the ad time.

 

[Something Amyss]

However, I've been wondering if the potency of Internet-based viral marketing could give rise to a virtually 'free' political campaign with enough momentum to challenge the two major parties. And if not that, what would it take to get voters to consider a third party?

First off, specious reasoning is rampant, which is why people always tout the lack of options. It requires absolutely no thought beyond the utterly superficial.

Now, isn't an internet-based campaign what Ron Paul tried for the sociopa--libertarian party for like a decade?

I also don't buy the "it's because they're all the same" argument. Now, this is not to say that the two major parties aren't very similar, but the fact is, a massive chunk of 'Murricans believe in the difference. It's also telling that people DON'T support a different candidate when he comes along.

 

[Johnny Impact]

It's strange how we talk about politics as dirty, yet think it is perfectly natural for it to be so. Empty promises, doubletalk, and hidden special-interest sponsorship is not how we build bridges and hospitals, or staff our police departments. We accept people into political office who we would never want in our homes or daily lives.

I don't vote because there aren't many things that matter to me. Those that do are not espoused by any candidates.

 

[CrazyCapnMorgan]

Sweet! Only one and a half pages, and I'm the one who gets to post this:


This pretty much sums up my feelings on the subject.

 

[Lightknight]

Lately it's been because of a lack of options. Most Americans are somewhere in the middle. If given the option between extreme right and extreme left voting doesn't really matter. People get all cutesy about how it's an obligation and right to vote, but in the absense of a legitimate option you really are just wasting your time.

Example of how the middle may see the parties:
Republicans hold morally absolute positions (e.g. even actions that hurt no one may be wrong) hostage to morally questionable financial practices that help the rich become richer while ignoring the poor. Democrats reject some morally objectivity (as long as you're not hurting anyone, you should be able to do what you want) while supporting morally pleasant financial practices that can be questionably irresponsible.

People generally view parties as 1 part social issue and 1 part fiscal policies as what makes the parties different. Some people are in favor of both components of one party or only one. For example, a self-identified Christian may favor the socially conservative positions of the Republican party while finding the current fiscal policy abhorrent. An atheist businessman may favor the Democratic party's social policies while finding the fiscal policies irresponsible and harmful to businesses.

Those are just off the cuff examples. I personally consider fiscal policies one in the same as social issues with the belief that we should support the needy while doing so in a responsible and efficient manner. The past decade of elections has seen people who want to drop the needy or people who want to spend irresponsibly. A few who want to do both.

When I go to vote, it's usually to vote on specific bills/amendments. The candidates of both parties are so polarized as to make the choice between the two meaningless to me. I can completely see why people wouldn't go vote if they just see it as voting for candidates.

 

[Something Amyss]

"If you choose not to decide YOU STILL HAVE MADE A CHOICE!" - Rush

I am not sure if such an option is available in America, but in the UK you can vote for none of the options. While to some that may seem pointless as you may as well save time and not do it, it sends the message that you have no support for any of the candidates. Whereas if you don't vote at all it could be considered for many different reasons such as being too busy unavailable to. Voting against either on the other hand makes it clear that neither party is favourable.

If everybody who didn't think it was worth voting opted to vote for none of the options, politicians might start to rethink their attitudes, especially in countries with a lower general turnout.

A friend of mine once wrote me in for President. You can technically vote for anybody. A lot of people vote for Mickey Mouse. Of course, this being America and our education system being what it is, they might be serious votes rather than a joke alternative to express dissatisfaction with the system as-is.

A "None of the Above" campaign has been done before, inspired in part by Brewster's Millions (I forgot to clarify whether it was the book or one of the movies). Possibly several have.

So yeah, we can do what we want with our ballot. I usually vote third party because seriously, if people don't vote third parties then they really don't have a chance. Vermont usually has over a dozen, but one problem is that it's not standard across states. Different voting laws for different states. I'm pretty sure Ron "I advise keeping an illegal gun so you can get away with shooting black people" Paul[footnote]He totally didn't say that, he just signed his name to materials without first perusing them, then hired the guy he blamed for that shit as his campaign manager, so it's totally not his fault[/footnote] didn't make the ballot up here some years and did others. I know Nader had trouble getting on some states' ballots. We have few standards outside the big two. But we do have them, despite what people said.

 

[salfiert]

I live in Australia. I get a fine if I don't vote. Regardless of the threat of fine, I still vote and somewhat resent those that don't, but Australian politics is something of a joke. Not much gets done, regardless of which party is elected.

Unfortunately, we have a chimp for a Prime Minister now.

true we have a chimp for prime minister, and yes voting is compulsory, but never let it be said that your vote doesn't count, every single vote counts down to the nth degree(having worked at the counting of the most recent election I can safely say it is not to make it administratively easier), and really they do make it easy, I may not like the politicians, but our political system, is bloody fantastic.

the politicians on the other had are useless, I loath the liberal(conservative) party and labour are a bunch of bumbling fools at the moment, the greens are a bit loopy but at least we know what they stand for so I respect that, and minor parties can actually make a major difference in the political process, but how the fuck did the sports party, motoring enthusiast's and family first(cray cray christian party) get a seat.

and I know no Americans will find most of this relevant or interesting, but seriously, your electoral college system is whack, basically any other voting system is better, you should probably move to Australia, everything is sweet here we are rocking it economically compared to the rest of the world and seriously worried that we are not quite doing well enough, we are kinda racist, but we like america so you guys would be fine to chill here, and our creatures only try to kill you most of the time, straya!

 

[Fyffer]

I'm one of the ones that doesn't vote, and like many people have said its in part because of a lack of options. I don't agree with a lot of what either party wants to do and you want me to pick one? Based on what, which one I think will screw up my country a little bit less? That is like asking me which of two piles of crap tastes better, I'm not going to go for either of them.

When you vote, no matter what your reservations might be about the people or issues at hand, you are explicitly supporting this horribly broken system of picking our leadership. You are saying "I want more of this." because your vote is all they really hear and you pretty much voted yes to whatever they are selling. You don't get to pick which parts you support. When I don't vote, I'm saying "I don't want any of this." With so many complaints of low voter turnout, I hardly think I'm the only one that feels this way.

I'd start participating if we managed to get rid of political parties altogether. Made candidates stand on their own merits and beliefs instead of whatever party they are hiding behind and using for support.

Problem is, people love feeling they are part of a team...

 

[Hero of Lime]

And now you know why.

I do like voting, but admittedly only for Presidential, Congressional, and Senatorial type elections. I feel little need or care to vote in Mayoral elections and other really local ones, I guess because I feel like they don't matter. Even if they probably do anyway.

I feel pretentious saying this, but they do. I mean, yes, the President or your Congressperson probably is more important, but unless you live in one of maybe five or ten states, your state is already spoken for in terms of whether it's voting for the Democratic or Republican candidate, so in that sense your vote is meaningless. State elections, and especially local elections, are much more flexible, and it's totally possible for a third-party candidate to win. Turnout for local elections is also ridiculously low. Depending on the size of the town or district, fifty or a hundred votes spoken for could easily be enough to decide a candidate's victory.

Good points, I probably should care more about local elections, but I swear I never hear about them till after they already take place. Unlike the presidential or midterm elections, there is no set date for local ones where I am, so it's easy to turn on the local news and hear about the election results without even knowing about it in the first place.

 

[briankoontz]

Voting in national elections doesn't matter. Even in a swing state the odds of one vote mattering is nearly zero, and it's absolutely zero in the vast majority of states. Also - only two candidates, similar to each other and both terrible with respect to the needs of ordinary people, have any chance of winning an election. So *even if* one wins the lottery and one's vote actually does matter, the best outcome is the election of the lesser evil.

Local elections are a different story entirely. In a small town with a couple thousand voters one vote can be the difference and there's more room for differences among the candidates.

There's larger voter turnout in Europe since many European countries use a multi-party system where the more votes a party candidate gets, the more seats in the legislative body goes to that party. That's a very sensible way to run that kind of system, which is why it will never happen in the United States.

 

[TBman]

I would say it's because our voting system is both criminally unfair and grossly obsolete, although there are probably other factors at work as well

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUS9mM8Xbbw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wC42HgLA4k&list=SPqs5ohhass_QZtSkX06DmWOaEaadwmw_D

 

[Rylingo]

A two party system that's rife with bribery. Wait did I meant to say lobbying, because that's sooooooooo different. Yeah, voting in America is like choosing between getting shot or stabbed. Both parties suck.

And that's probably not going to change until you nationalise all political parties.