Why do so few Americans vote?

[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.

 

[Naeras]

Tying in yesterday's Norwegian elections with this discussion:

I don't think I would have voted if I was living in America either. I could vote for the Democrats or the republicans and it wouldn't really make that much of a difference. You end up with much the same.

Now out election was done today and my party actually had a great turnout, we secured 5.2% which is a lot better than last time. I swear I was staying up late last night to catch the results because the nuances matter. It's not just right/left republican/democrat, it's the balance between all the spectrum. I already knew we'd get a right win government this time, but how much power the parties would manage to get was what made me excited. Now we we still don't know how out government will turn out because this will have to be negotiated to see which parties will work with each other.

Now sorry for going a bit off topic there, but that is why the elections here interest me. There's more options, it's more than picking the president.

Norwegian, and a member of The Liberals(which is what wikipedia translated 'Venstre' to), I presume?

While the election here turned out as expected(that is, not quite the way I would have preferred), the following weeks/months are going to be extremely interesting. It's certain that there will be a right-wing government, but there are, at the moment, three possible party-coalitions for a government. Two of them will not have a majority vote in the parliament. The third option will have a majority vote, but it is going to involve four parties, where the contrasts between at least three of the parties could potentially make a coalition really tough.

There were also the fact that the Green Environmentalists Party, which was almost unheard off 3-4 years ago, suddenly gained a lot of momentum and now has a mandate on the parliament, and the fact that one of the current governmental parties was 1600 votes away from losing most of their supporting mandates, and that the Labourer's Party, which is currently not lined up for a governmental position, nevertheless is the biggest party in the country, and might be the reserve solution if the right-wing government negotiations break down completely(which is very unlikely, but still). All of these things certainly made it feel like my vote mattered, because it could have gone so many ways depending on who voted what.

Again, you don't see this in the US. You vote for either of the big two, and from a foreigner's point of view, the vote looks like it's basically whether you're for or against taxes, gun control and abortion.

 

[GAunderrated]

"I think the first thing that we have to do is recognize that we don't have a two party system. I sort of kid about this by saying that we have a one party system, and someday I'm hoping for a second party! Because my experience in Washington has showed me that the 2 parties are much more closely aligned than the people realize. Both of them support our foreign policy of wars overseas (which is wrong), both parties support the Federal Reserve System and the banking cartel, both parties have endlessly supported deficit financing, and both parties unfortunately have supported the attacks on our personal civil liberties. Now the problem is, if we don't have a process whereby you disagree with the two parties, you don't have anyplace to go because it is very difficult to get on the ballot, it's difficult to get in the debates unless you participate in the "so-called" two-party system we have today, and ultimately the changes come about not by tinkering with either political party - it only comes through education and getting people to understand the wisdom of non-intervention in foreign policy, non-intervention in personal liberties, and non-intervention in the economy." -Ron Paul

Before you pull out your so brave and #shotsfired, that's just using Ron paul so I don't have to fully write out my two cents on the matter. I like to think that it's not entirely because Americans think their vote is insignificant compared to the other registered voters, but more like they think that it doesn't matter who gets in power.

Also, fifty percent of Americans is still a pretty big number.

I just wanted to post to say thank you for taking the quote I was going to post myself. This is a more crude way of getting the point across but for OP it should help explain how people see the voting system.

http://www.commonsenseevaluation.com/tag/republicans/

 

[sageoftruth]

Personally, I think an ill-informed vote is worse than not voting at all. While I have voted each time so far, I always came very close to not voting. My main reason is that I don't follow politics that closely and I did not want to vote if I didn't know who I was voting for. It wasn't until I had done enough research and talked to enough people with different views that I felt comfortable about it.

 

[Rylingo]

People either vote because they honestly think their vote will change the course of the election or on principal because they believe that they should vote for a democratic party that represents them.

Voting because you think you can change the course of the election is provably false unless you are in a swing state. So it's rare that your vote can make a difference.
Voting on principal fails in the states because both of the two parties are extremely similar. This means that the vast majority of the electorate is not represented by either party and hence should not vote for someone who doesn't represent them lest it breach their own principals.

Hence it is rare that Americans have any reason to vote.

 

[Jadak]

But yeah, I vote. Why? Because even if my vote won't change anything, at least I'll have the right to ***** about how this country is going to shit.

Only if you voted for the other guy

 

[GonzoGamer]

I think it's because most people recognize that all the politicians are corrupt dbags who just know how to work a room. None of the ones that ever get elected have the well being of the common constituent in mind but rather the big businesses that fund their bloated campaigns; its easy to get people to follow you when you can stuff a few full of free money.

That's not to say it stops me from voting. I just vote for weirdos who will never get elected anyway. For example, in our last mayoral election (NYC) I voted for McMillan of The Rent is Too Damn High Party (it's true); not only do I know that he wont get lobbying dollars from the developers and slumlords, but he probably doesn't get much in the way of lobbying dollars from anywhere. The first time I voted for mayor of NYC, I voted for Al Lewis (yea, Grandpa Munster, that Al Lewis) of the Marijuana Reform party. So just because you believe the entire system is corrupt (and you'd be right), doesn't mean you shouldn't vote.

 

[Sir Thomas Sean Connery]

Both candidates are always assholes.

Even if one looks better, everyone knows whichever one wins is just going to move more and more to the center and make fewer and fewer actual decisions.

And anyone who honestly believes the independents have a chance in hell is only fooling themselves.

I'll probably vote when I get the chance.

Also there's that bullshit about the Electoral College that makes it so the popular vote is literally meaningless. If you're a democrat living in a heavily republican state or visa versa, your vote is overridden be the color your state goes.

 

[Vykrel]

personally, i have no intention of ever voting for something as big as the presidency. for one thing, there are only two parties that even stand a chance, and it always ends up being those two parties pitted against one another, which is ridiculous. i sure would like to see an election where third party candidates actually stand a chance, or even an election that ends up being mainly between two democrats or two republicans. but no, it is always left vs right, red vs blue.

second, the candidates end up being the same, either way. back when Obama was first elected, i knew that nothing would "Change". he is a politician. they all are, and they cant be trusted to keep their promises. and even if they could, the president is not the king. he doesnt have unlimited power, and theres going to be a lot of things that wont change even if the president wants them to.

third, it is up to the electoral college to elect the president and vice president anyway. our votes literally do not matter. if the people vote for one person, the electoral college can just choose the other.

fourth, you cant kick yourself for voting for a candidate who ends up being terrible if you didnt vote to begin with. i would feel pretty crappy if i voted for someone who wound up going against everything they said they would do.

and finally, the cynic in me cant help but feel that the majority of politicians are just out to further their own interests, and those of major corporations. i dont feel like the president really cares about me.

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

Governments are meant to represent the people but they dont. Once in power they will do whatever they wish that suits them or their friends and they lie to get into power anyway. You vote them in to power based on the things they said they will do, and they turn their back on it. Surely they should be kicked out for that? You can get cynical and just see them all as bad as each other. Im cynical that democracy is even a thing anymore. In the uk they all voted whether to bomb Syria, the vote was a big NO. Did our PM accept that and move on? Nope. He bitched and whined like a child.

 

[Mcupobob]

I vote Libertarian, research who I vote for ect ect when I have the time and I try to make time. Doesn't matter though, people think voting third party is a waste of a vote. Which doesn't make sense, if your not happy with either parties why keep voting for the (supposed)lesser of two evils?

I'll keep voting though, don't expect anything to change anytime soon.

Don't vote in Local matters though, prolly should. I'll try and vote in State matters when I can.

 

[Yopaz]

Tying in yesterday's Norwegian elections with this discussion:
Norwegian, and a member of The Liberals(which is what wikipedia translated 'Venstre' to), I presume?

While the election here turned out as expected(that is, not quite the way I would have preferred), the following weeks/months are going to be extremely interesting. It's certain that there will be a right-wing government, but there are, at the moment, three possible party-coalitions for a government. Two of them will not have a majority vote in the parliament. The third option will have a majority vote, but it is going to involve four parties, where the contrasts between at least three of the parties could potentially make a coalition really tough.

There were also the fact that the Green Environmentalists Party, which was almost unheard off 3-4 years ago, suddenly gained a lot of momentum and now has a mandate on the parliament, and the fact that one of the current governmental parties was 1600 votes away from losing most of their supporting mandates, and that the Labourer's Party, which is currently not lined up for a governmental position, nevertheless is the biggest party in the country, and might be the reserve solution if the right-wing government negotiations break down completely(which is very unlikely, but still). All of these things certainly made it feel like my vote mattered, because it could have gone so many ways depending on who voted what.

Again, you don't see this in the US. You vote for either of the big two, and from a foreigner's point of view, the vote looks like it's basically whether you're for or against taxes, gun control and abortion.

You were spot on, I did indeed vote for Venstre (The liberals) and I was quite happy with their turnout. It does get a lot more interesting when there are so many layers and different outcomes. Right now the coalition that is required for a majority between the 4 right-ish (or blue as we often call them) parties is quite dodgy. Two of the parties are pretty much opposites on some of their most important cases and they have, one is very focused on the environment and oil drilling, one doesn't believe the environment exists. Luckily the party I can't stand won't get a whole lot of influence regardless, but I'll be waiting eagerly to see what kind of government we'll end up with.

 

[Lightknight]

Americans have at least 2 different parties,Here in sweden we have 8 parties which is very simmilar in practis because our parties have split in to 2 different groups
The Alliance(Sounds so stupid in sweden)
Moderaterna our Conservative party and is more socialist than the democratic party and is like our socialist country except lower taxes
Kristdemokraterna the jesus lovers need I say more
Centerpartiet the light version of the moderates
Folkpartiet The farmers party without any form of connection to farmers
And now the opposition
Socialdemokraterna Our Socialist party which is very much as the moderaterna except with higher taxes and have gotten the most number of votes every election since the 1920s.
Miljöpartiet Our environmentalists no clue about anything except plant more trees
Sverigedemokraterna The resident inbred stop all form of immigration and go back to the 1600s
Vänsterpartiet The former Communist party which record vote number is 10%
In the end we only have 2 parties and the social democrats that matter The moderates

Two parties is generally a very efficient mechanism IF the two parties allow for candidates that aren't completely polarized to the far side in tehir direction. As the polarization increases, voters become less and less satisfied with their choice and it begins to be the lesser of two evils unless you're also far right or far left. As a middle of the road guy myself, my options suck right now.

However, it is difficult for us to have more parties because of the setup. If a third party gained prominence, we'd see it potentially ruin everything by being closer to one side than the other while cannibalizing votes from the other party and giving the third unique party the largest advantage even if more than half of the people voted for the other two.

So the best bet is to either have two parties or several parties like your country and several others. I would much prefer 8 or more options. I do wonder what how that would play out in congress. Would it encourage negotiation or make things entirely impossible?

 

[Fyffer]

Two parties is generally a very efficient mechanism IF the two parties allow for candidates that aren't completely polarized to the far side in tehir direction. As the polarization increases, voters become less and less satisfied with their choice and it begins to be the lesser of two evils unless you're also far right or far left. As a middle of the road guy myself, my options suck right now.

However, it is difficult for us to have more parties because of the setup. If a third party gained prominence, we'd see it potentially ruin everything by being closer to one side than the other while cannibalizing votes from the other party and giving the third unique party the largest advantage even if more than half of the people voted for the other two.

So the best bet is to either have two parties or several parties like your country and several others. I would much prefer 8 or more options. I do wonder what how that would play out in congress. Would it encourage negotiation or make things entirely impossible?

I can't see how it would be much worse in congress than it is right now. They already refuse to work with each other most of the time as it is. At least this way they'd have a better excuse.

 

[Adamantium93]

6 Reasons:

1. Voting is not mandatory like it is in many other countries.

2. Voting is often a massive inconvenience time-wise.
2.5 Some districts don't even count absentee ballots.

3. The way the electoral college is set up (that is, the process by which the votes are tallied and assigned to candidates) is one of the worst possible methods for creating fair representation.

4. Unless you live in Ohio, Florida, or another "Battle Ground" state, your vote will not matter because your state will always go to the party it has always voted for.

5. Our system is basically closed off to a third party. Parties other than Democrats and Republicans aren't shown in the debates nor are they given as extensive media coverage. Historically, the presence of a third party only served to split one of the two existing parties, allowing the other to win the election anyway.

6. Our president actually has very little power in domestic matters. Most of our country is actually run by Congress and the Senate. Therefore, changing a President only really effects our foreign relations and military (though most people don't realize this).

 

[Lightknight]

I can't see how it would be much worse in congress than it is right now. They already refuse to work with each other most of the time as it is. At least this way they'd have a better excuse.

It could go either way. At least having two major parties means that you are under more pressure to vote in favor of things that your party wants. So it's easier to get things passed if you can convince just a few members of the other side to vote with you. With 8 or more different parties that initial advantage goes away and you may find yourself having to convince many members. We've seen difficulties with that in other countries.

There may not be any perfect way to do this. Perhaps in the future Americans will be able to vote directly in real time on bills since technology has actually made representative government less efficient.