Why do so few Americans vote?
- Thread starter James Joseph Emerald
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I don't vote because as far as I'm concerned politics are just a confusing mess of stupid and bullshit and I can't be bothered to waste hour upon hour of my time looking into who supposedly stands for what and what issues they are and aren't willing to talk about. In years to come I might at least bother making a more educated choice in the elections, but until then I'm not going to bother.
I accidentally deleted your initial question, but I'll answer it first (to the best of my ability).James Joseph Emerald said:
The very first post beneath yours already mentioned one reason - work day, no day off. This functions to prevent a lot of low-income individuals from voting because, to misquote House M.D., if you're working minimum wage, you really can't afford to take time off or risk pissing off your boss by calling in "sick".
Secondly, one major aspect is this - Districting. If you aren't familiar, American has a fairly bizarre system of slicing up areas in really strange ways. I'm not entirely up to date on the exact mechanics of how it works on a vote-by-vote level, but basically politicians will draw the voting distract map all wonky so that certain groups of voters are counted together while others are broken up. Depending on who is in office (and the level of corruption at that time) you get different political groups messing with the districts to favor themselves and harm the opposition.
I had it explained to me once, but that was some time ago. The basic idea, however, is that if you are a "minority" - politically speaking, I mean - in a given district, then you might as well not vote because the districting has been designed to screw over your group in favor of a different group. Again, this changes with various administrations, so political minority in a given district might not reflect actual minorities or political minorities state wide.
Thus, if you know that your vote can't possibly overpower the districting, why bother wasting your time?
Thirdly, the two-party "system" basically means that, if you are a member of a party other than the main two, then you can pretty much count on your vote meaning nothing.
So yeah - that's why a lot of people don't vote.
Now, to answer your second question....
When I lived in a heavily Republican district, no, I didn't vote, because my side was going to lose no matter what.
Now that I live in a more even (but leaning Democratic) district, yes, I do vote, because my vote actually helps tip the scales to my side.
No reason to bother when my choice of vote would mean nothing since I live in a consistently red state. I guess I'll still vote out of a sense of duty, but it's easy to see why voter apathy exists in the capacity it does here.
Land of the free indeed.
Land of the free indeed.
I don't vote, and I see no good reason why I should. All I ever hear in its favor is ideological bs.
I don't believe politics, least of all the political system here in U.S., is either an effective or civil way to relate to my fellow man, a way to have my "voice heard", etc.
I'm entirely apolitical, and unapologetically so.
Who asks people to vote who isn't primarily interested in winning favor for their political party, or just mindless regurgitating platitudinous value statements with regard to "our duty as citizens"?
I don't believe politics, least of all the political system here in U.S., is either an effective or civil way to relate to my fellow man, a way to have my "voice heard", etc.
I'm entirely apolitical, and unapologetically so.
Who asks people to vote who isn't primarily interested in winning favor for their political party, or just mindless regurgitating platitudinous value statements with regard to "our duty as citizens"?
not american, but i voted every single time possible.
American vite turnover is high compared to my countries, where it hardly reaches 30% lately. most people just go by "we can chose between two evil so lets not choose at all" type of deal. this allows parties like a party which was created for sole purpose of defending a killer from justice, because they imagined that the judge was a pedofile. yes, i am serious.
American vite turnover is high compared to my countries, where it hardly reaches 30% lately. most people just go by "we can chose between two evil so lets not choose at all" type of deal. this allows parties like a party which was created for sole purpose of defending a killer from justice, because they imagined that the judge was a pedofile. yes, i am serious.
In america, both parties are right extremists anyway, so the appeal windows is small t begin with.Hero of Lime said:
We just voted for a new government in Norway, and when I went to vote the place was pretty much abandoned. Just my friend, the people working there and me... 81% of people in my country voted, with my city in particular having the lowest number of people turn up in the whole country X3. Nobody likes going out voting in the rain...
Indeed, there needs to be more executive powers with one person/a smaller group of people within parliament. It makes for more risk for a nutcase getting in and screwing everything (Hitler, for example), but the beauty is that our Monarch is still head of the army, and can chuck out anyone they think is going to really screw the nation. The checks and balances works fine, and that's precisely what Magna Carta & subsequent declarations were intended for. Right now, parliament stagnates to indecision because there are so many voices saying so many things, nobody agrees, and thus nothing gets done.SkarKrow said:
Like I said, there needs to be one person, or a group of people that, at the end of the day, they can say, "You've weighed in, we've considered your opinions, but this is what's going forward.". Even if it doesn't necessarily work perfectly, at least stuff get's done.
What we need is a brief spell of a benevolent dictatorship. I vote that we do it under Brian Blessed. Because then when push comes to shove he can just bellow at whoever is responsible and shout them to the moon.Griffolion said:
Interesting you should say that actually. The Russians have a very similar mindset, except they call theirs the "Kindly Czar". Someone who is strong, and will get things done, but who also cares for the people. Honestly, if the dictator was truly benevolent, and had the people's interests in mind, then I'd be okay with it. But you just can't trust any one person to not go mad/evil with power.SkarKrow said:
Well history shows us that benevolent dictators (or indeed benevolent monarchs with power) are the most prosperous and effective form of government. It eleminates bickering and things are done in the interest of prosperity and the people.Griffolion said:
The problem is the mechanism by which the dictator is installed, as it often will install somebody greedy and selfish, since those are precisely the kind of people who seek positions of power.
...I usually won't. In elections, state size, the candidates never seem to represent my desires, and my vote is literally meaningless in presidential elections.
It's almost never representative of my political views anyway. I mean, the last presidential election, my favorite candidate was in the Green Party. Because that'll win. Never.
It's disappointing, to be honest. Maybe I'd vote more if it mattered, but as it is, I feel that my decisions have absolutely zero effect on government.
It's almost never representative of my political views anyway. I mean, the last presidential election, my favorite candidate was in the Green Party. Because that'll win. Never.
It's disappointing, to be honest. Maybe I'd vote more if it mattered, but as it is, I feel that my decisions have absolutely zero effect on government.