Why should I bother voting?

[Judicator]

Especially in the major elections, where my vote will be one among millions. In my view, the only way you can make a difference in any election with that number of people is if you actually change the outcome of the election, i.e. if the election is decided by a single vote (yours).

This seems vastly improbable, to the point where the cost of voting (walking to the polls, registering to vote, etc) outweighs the expected benefit (the extra enjoyment you get out of having your candidate in office instead of other one, weighted by the probability that your vote will result in his election).

A couple reasons I've seen before but rejected:

"It's your civic duty." I don't know if this is true. There are a lot of people who I think aren't sufficiently informed to make good voting decisions, will vote on narrow issues (ignoring the welfare of the country as a whole). Maybe we're better off not encouraging these people to vote. If they did, candidates would have extra incentive to pander to narrow interests and ignore real policy questions (which I think harms the political process.

"But if everyone thought the way you did, nobody would vote and democracy wouldn't work etc etc." First of all, in some ways this would benefit me because then my vote would matter more (and I might actually vote as a result). Secondly, this doesn't really respond to my point. Whether or not I vote has a little effect (if any) on whether or not others vote. Other people don't ask me if I voted or not before deciding whether or not to vote; they make the choice independently.


Any others? Maybe you have more right to complain about a current administration if you voted?

[D Sretenovic]

Maybe you should vote just because you have a chance to do so. Let`s not forget that one of the first battles our ancestors won in the ``war`` for democracy is battle for a chance to choose their representatives. The least we could do to show our respect for their sacrifice is to step out, once in a while and... vote, simple as that. I live in a country where the political scene isn`t still quite mature enough, because we`ve been under totalitarian regime for a long period and democracy is still a fresh concept. That results in a very small number of ``serious`` politicians, so the choice is often difficult. But, nevertheless, I feel voting is my duty, so I never skip!

[edd1]

Yes, maybe, but democracy doesn't mean much. I mean seriously my vote doesn't matter. It really doesn't. 1 in 300 million doesn't matter.

[caphis]

It wasn't until this year that I have seriously begun pondering this question, myself. Not for the reasons you name, but for belief-based reasons.

I see voting as my personal endorsement of a candidate. My "seal of approval," if you will. By voting, I am officially saying that I approve of one candidate to lead the nation.

This year, that may not happen. Right now, we have three big contenders to face:

John McCain, whose politics I simply don't agree with. I can not approve of his methodology or beliefs.

Barack Obama, whose politics I can somewhat agree with, but who I can not back because I disagree with his qualifications to lead the nation. I just can't get behind him, because I can't jump on the idealism bandwagon and suspend my disbelief of reality. I just don't believe that this man is ready or capable of running the country.

Hillary Clinton, whose politics and position in the election I support 100%. I wholeheartedly endorse Senator Clinton's campaign, and will pledge my support for in 2008.

To be quite honest, I haven't studied any independent candidate's positions or qualifications. Should HRC not receive the nomination, I will do so in the intermediate time before the election.

But yeah, my vote is my endorsement. I won't vote just to "choose the least reprehensible person." I won't vote just because "it's my civic duty." I won't vote "just because I can." I won't vote for "the next best thing." I won't vote to please the status quo.

I will vote only for someone whose values, positions, and qualifications I endorse wholeheartedly.

[gela]

You'd be suprised what difference a few votes would make:

Libs win seat by 12 votes | NEWS.com.au

umm.. this might seem irrevelent.. But 700 000 people voted in this poll, and Muse beat Silverchair by 13 votes. I think thats pretty crazy:
Triple J Hottest 100, 2007 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[madprophet]

I support the view that your vote doesn't matter. Hopefully everyone will adopt this opinion about the value of their vote, making mine the only one worth anything (because I'll be the only one to bother voting,) and giving me the power over the most powerful country in the world! Bwahahaha! Bow before your future ruler, puny non-voters! Bring me cake! CAKE, I SAY!!!

[megadeth425]

The problem with your logic is that your vote is not counted out of 300 million, not from the nation as a whole. Your vote is counted only among people in the same government-specificed district, and based on those votes of a much lower volume, a representative is named, and it's the amount of those representatives that decide the end result. When we break down the numbers into these districts, these areas of small population who name not a leader but a representative, your one vote has exponentially more weight to it. While your vote still has little bearing on the end result of the election, you have far more power than simply voting in a leader, and with those smaller numbers, a movement can change everything.

[grandpa]

Quote by: megadeth425 The problem with your logic is that your vote is not counted out of 300 million, not from the nation as a whole. Your vote is counted only among people in the same government-specificed district, and based on those votes of a much lower volume, a representative is named, and it's the amount of those representatives that decide the end result.

Coupled with my lack of faith in a candidacy, this adequately describes why voting doesn't matter much. The end result is basically determined by authority.

Grandpa h.

[USSRv2]

There is no reason to vote until true democracy is instated. A state where Capital controls all sorts of input is not a democracy, is a Corporatist state.

[megadeth425]

True, the system isn't entirely, or even really partly, democratic. But I look at it quite simply; I can choose who screws me over, and I want the one who screws me over the least/slowest. Dennis Kucinich, or for that matter any politician who shares my views will never get elected, but I have the ability to at least state that this politician screws me over less/slower and that my one vote at least states that they get screwed over the less.

Or, you could always vote for a party that will never get elected, like the Green party. I don't know how it works in the US, but in Canada I'm pretty sure parties get money with each vote, so that then it turn helps get their message out more.

[nm420]

I vote third party. It is a purely symbolic act that says "F*** you" to the two parties. They don't hear the message, but the tiny amount of satisfaction I get from that is worth the tiny amount of effort it takes to actually vote.

[grandpa]

Quote by: nm420 I vote third party. It is a purely symbolic act that says "F*** you" to the two parties.

As you already know, I'm not going to go and help local and state
candidates get elected this time around...and quite possibly never again. The principle extends beyond the two parties and reaches into party politics generally. This is not to say I condemn anyone too sharply for voting outside the two-party death grip, but it's not for me lately.

Grandpa h.

[sevendogs]

I look at this pure pragmatically. It depends how you are going to vote. If you would vote Republican, better stay home. If you want to vote Democratic, go to vote. I wil dogood to your country.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Judicator Especially in the major elections, where my vote will be one among millions. In my view, the only way you can make a difference in any election with that number of people is if you actually change the outcome of the election, i.e. if the election is decided by a single vote (yours). This seems vastly improbable, to the point where the cost of voting (walking to the polls, registering to vote, etc) outweighs the expected benefit (the extra enjoyment you get out of having your candidate in office instead of other one, weighted by the probability that your vote will result in his election). A couple reasons I've seen before but rejected: "It's your civic duty." I don't know if this is true. There are a lot of people who I think aren't sufficiently informed to make good voting decisions, will vote on narrow issues (ignoring the welfare of the country as a whole). Maybe we're better off not encouraging these people to vote. If they did, candidates would have extra incentive to pander to narrow interests and ignore real policy questions (which I think harms the political process. "But if everyone thought the way you did, nobody would vote and democracy wouldn't work etc etc." First of all, in some ways this would benefit me because then my vote would matter more (and I might actually vote as a result). Secondly, this doesn't really respond to my point. Whether or not I vote has a little effect (if any) on whether or not others vote. Other people don't ask me if I voted or not before deciding whether or not to vote; they make the choice independently. Any others? Maybe you have more right to complain about a current administration if you voted?

You have sort of answered your own question, if no one voted then democracy would fail and the Supreme Court would have to appoint someone like they did when they could not count everyone's vote.

It has become more of being an emotional expression of some sort, like shouting in a crowd of sceaming teenagers over some super star rock singer.

It feels good. Like buying a lotto ticket. A wish motivated idea based on some day dream.

For example: If one tiny star vanished from the sky would it make any differnece to us? But if they all stopped twinkling then our view of the night sky would become dark indeed. A single vote would not be missed, it is the massing of a million votes that makes the difference.

So come next election day I will hum a little tune "twinkle twinkle little star, where are you" and I will be thinking about your thread here.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Technosoul You have sort of answered your own question, if no one voted then democracy would fail and the Supreme Court would have to appoint someone like they did when they could not count everyone's vote. It has become more of being an emotional expression of some sort, like shouting in a crowd of sceaming teenagers over some super star rock singer.

If no one voted it could still be considered democratic. Voting is only one possible expression of democratic tendencies, and it's largely methodical anyway.

As Henry David Thoreau (who I personally think was more enlightened than the bulk of humanity) put it:

All voting is a sort of gaming, like checkers or backgammon, with a slight moral tinge to it, a playing with right and wrong, with moral questions; and betting naturally accompanies it. The character of the voters is not staked. I cast my vote, perchance, as I think right; but I am not vitally concerned that that right should prevail. I am willing to leave it to the majority. Its obligation, therefore, never exceeds that of expediency. Even voting for the right is doing nothing for it. It is only expressing to men feebly your desire that it should prevail. A wise man will not leave the right to the mercy of chance, nor wish it to prevail through the power of the majority. There is but little virtue in the action of masses of men. When the majority shall at length vote for the abolition of slavery, it will be because they are indifferent to slavery, or because there is but little slavery left to be abolished by their vote. They will then be the only slaves. Only his vote can hasten the abolition of slavery who asserts his own freedom by his vote.
Thoreau's Civil Disobedience - 1

Grandpa h.