Why don't we vote?

[Sethran]

This is specifically addressed to the Americans on the board, because I don't know how it works in other country's democracies. In America, we vote for the President, Congressmen, and Senators. That's it. They then proceed to decide the policy of our country, entirely on their own. I realize that, for most of the issues with running a country, this seems like a good system but -- is it really?

The question of Gay Marriage is batted back and forth between senators and congressmen, the president and other elected officials, as they argue back and forth whether or not it's something we should do. They're arguing this on a small-scale, and not coming to any decisions, so-- why don't we vote?

It's an issue that will affect the entirety of America, not just the congress, senate, and the President, so why can't we vote on it? Democracies are meant to be run 'by the people, for the people', but all I ever see is 'by the government, acting on what they believe the whims of the people to be without actually acknowledging the spoken desires except for while running for office'. I realize, of course, that not everyone can run a country on day-to-day terms and Politicians have their uses, but for issues that affect the country on wide scale -- Removing our dependence on foreign fuels, going to or pulling out of war, rebuilding the empire state building, and even gay marriage -- why don't we vote?

Why, when we do get to vote, are we presented with names and check boxes? Why not, instead, be presented with stances on issues and check boxes? Instead of voting Barack Obama '08, or McCain-Palin '08, why not vote 'Gay Marriage '08', or 'Alternatives Fuels '08'? These are just questions, but they are questions that need to be heard, so feel free to ask other people these same questions. Why can't we vote on the big issues that affect our country? Why can we only vote for the people who will then banter back and forth, useless for years until replaced because they don't want to deal with it?

 

[HeyZeus_Ezekiel_Jesus]

Technically WE don't vote for the president. We vote for who we like but they don't actually get ellected by our vote.

 

[Sethran]

Still, it is rare for the popular vote to not be the winning vote. Rare, not unheard of mind you.

 

[HeyZeus_Ezekiel_Jesus]

I know it's not unheard of but after Bush I don't think the Electorial College will really elect a half-white, half-black candidate.

 

[mbv-]

i question the motives and their intellect of the country that allowed bush a second term...

 

[Slycne]

Well for one, sometimes the minority needs to be considered. Take for instance Gay Marriage. It's likely that the number of people for it or simply don't care could carry a popular vote on the issue. The problem is that the people who don't care are not going to show up to vote. So you have only the 2 extremes showing up.

You also have to consider making an informed decision. Most people will not take the time to research their decision or think it through for the possible ramifications.

What I would be happier to see is the break down of our 2 party system. Allowing us to vote for candidates who more closely represent our views. Instead of comprising our views and in the end voting for the one we think is the lesser of two evils.

Although I will say it would be a interesting experiment to run a system based entirely on the popular vote.

 

[Razzle Bathbone]

Problems with referenda:
- whoever frames the question decides whether or not it will pass
- reduces all of government to binary black-or-white, yes-or-no dichotomies
- assumes that one of the two choices is actually good
- assumes there is no nuance to the issue
- polarizes societies, and leads to the current state of American politics

Democracy is complicated and messy and nuanced. A referendum is a clear-cut us versus them ultimatum. As a result, referenda often wind up eroding the public's will to democracy. The greatest masters of this techique were Napoleon and Hitler, both of whom used referenda to destroy democracies and gain power.

 

[Gxas]

'by the government, acting on what they believe the whims of the people to be without actually acknowledging the spoken desires except for while running for office'.

QFT

This is exactly how the country is run.

 

[DannyDamage]

I'm from the UK so I don't have too much of a viable opinion to give, but I will say I like your ideas with the questions on the ballot paper instead of just the names.

I personally would like to see a "non of the above candidates" box on our forms. So that we can actually state we DON'T want any of these options, we don't want to choose the lesser of two evils and it will stop the government thinking that ALL the people who don't vote missed out because they're lazy. This is not always the case.

 

[HannesPascal]

It's a bit like that in Sweden too. We vote party and the party with most votes have the most power to control the country. But no party never gets enough votes to rule the country (over 50% of the votes) so they have to cooperate with other parties. There are two groups of parties the socialist parties and the non-socialist parties. And when a group of parties have the power they can make/change almost every law (except the constitutions) but when they are going to change a bigger thing they have a referendum to see if the people agree with the parties but they don't always follow the referendum. A party has the power for 4 years

 

[asleep at the comp]

to young to vote altough that dose not stop me from voting heh heh heh

 

[Rolling Thunder]

For once I agree with the ususaly foolish Avykins- if humans as a majority had the capacity to actually look after themselves beyond the eat-sleep-screw level, then we wouldn't need politicians.

As is, I admire the Athenians:

Ruler: You all have the vote.

Masses: Yay!

Ruler: Except you, you're poor. Fuck off and die, please.

Masses: Yayy!!

Ruler: Except you, you're female. And you-you're a slave,and you-you're just plain weird.

 

[Phoenix Arrow]

As is, I admire the Athenians:

Ruler: You all have the vote.

Masses: Yay!

Ruler: Except you, you're poor. Fuck off and die, please.

Masses: Yayy!!

Ruler: Except you, you're female. And you-you're a slave,and you-you're just plain weird.

Well that's not really being fair the Athenians. They only allowed learned people to have a vote. Seeing that generally, the poor, women and slaves at this time wouldn't know their arse from their elbow, I think that's totally reasonable.

Anyway, I think the American electoral system is ridiculous. I mean, I'm no expert so correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that the actual votes make fuck all difference to the victor. No representation for people who support the underdog party in the states that tend to have a certain loyalty. Doesn't seem at all fair.

 

[Saskwach]

Yay! My pet issue has come up again!
To start off I'll just link this little doo-hicky and start things off: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy
There are a few aspects of direct democracy that are actually workable. People can't, and won't, vote on every issue in any state that can actually get things done, but there are measures that, together, would constitute the nearest thing, and can be taken or left individually to create a mix of representative and direct democracy.
1)Required referenda on constitutional changes. This doesn't strike most people as a part of DD but it is, simply because it means the populace have a final say over how their society is run, not just who runs it. Without a forced vote on constitutional changes, politicians or judges might pick and choose what was fashionable at the time. Considering they love to skirt at the edges of what is constitutionally condoned anyway, it's best not to leave them that option - and most people agree.
2)The power to call a referendum to block any bill within a certain time after it has been passed. This works as follows. Once government has passed a bill, the clock starts. If, within X number of days of the bill being passed, Y number of citizens have signed a petition to call a referendum on the bill, then it is voted on and the decision of the referendum is upheld - yes or no.
3)The power to call a bill that can be directly voted on and put into law - if Y number of people sign a petition for a bill then it's voted upon. This one has its fair share of weaknesses: interest groups getting around government; playing on the feeling of the day, and so on. I'll admit this one needs the most work - if it's workable at all. This is in the realm of legal hocus pocus that I wouldn't want to get into so I'll simply leave it there.
4)Recall. The power to call a new vote for the head of state.
There are a few problems people have with these measures.
First is the feeling that government can't pass important bills quickly. That can easily be remedied by giving government an 'emergency bill' exception. Of course, the question then is whether this allowance might be too strict or too loose. That's a matter for legal jiggery-pokery, and not one I see as any harder or easier than, say, balancing judicial, executive and legislative branches.
Second: The people can't be relied upon to be balanced or informed. Perhaps; but we're all very familiar with politicians who are just as ignorant. Why can't the people who must live under government's laws ignorantly choose their own fate as well?
Third is the tyranny of the majority. We're all choosing tyrannies, though, and in a representative government it's a tyranny of rotated minority: Only a hundred or so politicians have the power to make law and dictate to the great majority and our only recourse to change is the threat and practice of a vote every X years. Thanks to gerrymandering in America's Congress, this is barely even a recourse at all.

As to voting for only congress members and presidents/governors, you Americans get all the luck. In Australia and Britain and, I assume, Canada, we vote for our Prime Minister by voting for the Lower House member of the same party. This means that whichever party won the executive branch also won half of the legislative branch by default (unless we have a hung parliament as has fortuitously come to pass only this week in Western Oz). The only way voters can check one party's power to make law is with their vote in the Upper House, which is disappointing.

 

[Wicky_42]

1)Required referenda on constitutional changes. This doesn't strike most people as a part of DD but it is, simply because it means the populace have a final say over how their society is run, not just who runs it. Without a forced vote on constitutional changes, politicians or judges might pick and choose what was fashionable at the time. Considering they love to skirt at the edges of what is constitutionally condoned anyway, it's best not to leave them that option - and most people agree.

I wish this was invoked more often - for example in Britain on the issue of Sharia Law. I don't want it in my country, my government wasn't elected to introduce it, and yet they have done so, with seemingly little thought to the consequences. Why do we not vote? Perhaps because no matter how good a candidate seems, what their policies are or what their party (should) stand for, in the end anybody desiring to run a country is probably not the right person to do it.

I dunno, politics makes me angry and excited in equal measures (of course, neither particularly strong emotion-wise, but none the less)... it's just so futile to try and find someone who's moderate, intelligent and has the best wishes of more than their career at heart.

 

[Alex_P]

Problems with referenda:
- whoever frames the question decides whether or not it will pass
- reduces all of government to binary black-or-white, yes-or-no dichotomies
- assumes that one of the two choices is actually good
- assumes there is no nuance to the issue
- polarizes societies, and leads to the current state of American politics

Democracy is complicated and messy and nuanced. A referendum is a clear-cut us versus them ultimatum. As a result, referenda often wind up eroding the public's will to democracy. The greatest masters of this techique were Napoleon and Hitler, both of whom used referenda to destroy democracies and gain power.

The stuff on California's ballot initiatives often ends up being ruled unconstitutional, too.

-- Alex

 

[merf1350]

I know it's not unheard of but after Bush I don't think the Electorial College will really elect a half-white, half-black candidate.

They actually have no real choice who the colleges vote for. The popular vote int the state dictates who the state goes to. Each state having different numbers of votes, and the total needing to be (whatever the hell it is, I don't remember the number). Whoever hits that magic number gets the presidency. That is why we have the so called battleground states. If you don't carry most or all of them, then you stand no chance of having enough votes to win.

 

[Alex_P]

1)Required referenda on constitutional changes. This doesn't strike most people as a part of DD but it is, simply because it means the populace have a final say over how their society is run, not just who runs it. Without a forced vote on constitutional changes, politicians or judges might pick and choose what was fashionable at the time. Considering they love to skirt at the edges of what is constitutionally condoned anyway, it's best not to leave them that option - and most people agree.
2)The power to call a referendum to block any bill within a certain time after it has been passed. This works as follows. Once government has passed a bill, the clock starts. If, within X number of days of the bill being passed, Y number of citizens have signed a petition to call a referendum on the bill, then it is voted on and the decision of the referendum is upheld - yes or no.

I like these two quite a bit.

-- Alex

 

[Rolling Thunder]

Phoenix has a point-the only unworkable one in there is the prohibiton on female voting- mainly because I have no desire to be roundly despised by the fairer sex for the eternity of mine life. So that'll come in to being.

Persons who are also not permited to vote(Fondant's Utopia theorem):

Those who have not taken any form of education beyond their GCSE's.

Persons who have been sentanced to be imprisioned for more than ten consecutive years (counting parole years, but not suspended sentances).

Persons who are mentally unstable (severely mentally unstable)

Foreigners (duh)

 

[Saskwach]

1)Required referenda on constitutional changes. This doesn't strike most people as a part of DD but it is, simply because it means the populace have a final say over how their society is run, not just who runs it. Without a forced vote on constitutional changes, politicians or judges might pick and choose what was fashionable at the time. Considering they love to skirt at the edges of what is constitutionally condoned anyway, it's best not to leave them that option - and most people agree.
2)The power to call a referendum to block any bill within a certain time after it has been passed. This works as follows. Once government has passed a bill, the clock starts. If, within X number of days of the bill being passed, Y number of citizens have signed a petition to call a referendum on the bill, then it is voted on and the decision of the referendum is upheld - yes or no.

I like these two quite a bit.

-- Alex

Me too. Those are the ones that would be deal-breakers for a basic DD. Without the power to say "no" you don't really have power at all, do you?
Initiative has enough potential problems that I can take it or leave it - and the Swiss chose to leave it when given the option, even though they live with 1 and 2 already - and recall would be nice but I won't go to the sandbags for it.