Why should you vote?

[Undesired Walrus]

With the election in the UK coming up, I come across more and more people who state that they are not going to vote, that there isn't much point, that 'nothing will change'. I find this deeply depressing, and more than a little annoying. However, I can't really give back a good response. I find the classic: 'people died for the right to vote' not all that compelling when you consider that people die for many things we take for granted. If I choose not to eat for a few days, you are unlikely to tell me 'people die for food' all around the world. So please give me- oh jref brains- a good argument as to why joe bloggs from the street should vote.

[chillzero]

Well, deciding to vote needs another part of the equation - an understanding of who you can vote for. I have decided to set aside my usual loathing of politics and to consider voting this time but I can't really identify anyone that I would feel it appropriate to spend my vote on.
So - perhaps such a discussion should incorporate who stands for what?

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I dislike people who say they don't vote to "send a message" or some crap rationalization. If you aren't adult enough to match your expectations to the real world and prefer to let go of the little power you actually do have, be honest.

The old "one vote doesn't make a difference" camp just floors me, though.

We just got a health care overhaul, and as the forum management can attest it is certainly something changing.

[Darat]

I will be voting even though the outcome is certain in my constituency (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/constituency/697/beaconsfield)!

[funk de fino]

I will be voting even though the outcome is certain in my constituency (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/constituency/697/beaconsfield)!

Nae luck

;)

[Rolfe]

For the first time in a UK election, I have a vote is a constituency that isn't a foregone conclusion. Feels good!

I vote in rather the same way as I sing in the choir. No one vote (or voice) makes the difference, but at the same time nobody else's vote (or voice) is more important than mine. Only by taking part does the music happen.

However - Tories, LibDems, Labour voters, please, please feel free to believe that your votes don't matter and there's no point. That would make me very very happy.... :D

Rolfe.

[Hokulele]

With the election in the UK coming up, I come across more and more people who state that they are not going to vote, that there isn't much point, that 'nothing will change'. I find this deeply depressing, and more than a little annoying. However, I can't really give back a good response. I find the classic: 'people died for the right to vote' not all that compelling when you consider that people die for many things we take for granted. If I choose not to eat for a few days, you are unlikely to tell me 'people die for food' all around the world. So please give me- oh jref brains- a good argument as to why joe bloggs from the street should vote.


For me, if someone doesn't know enough about the candidates or the issues, I would prefer they didn't vote. The whole "everyone should vote" mentality hinges on the assumption that they would vote intelligently, or vote the way I would (which is obviously the same thing :D). So, if that type of person does not vote, my vote counts that much more in getting the government to do what I want. Yay for democracy!

(Basically, what Rolfe said.)

[JoeTheJuggler]

I vote in rather the same way as I sing in the choir. No one vote (or voice) makes the difference, but at the same time nobody else's vote (or voice) is more important than mine. Only by taking part does the music happen.


Well said.

I like to play a little mental game where I figure there's almost like a quantum indeterminacy in many people's behavior. I figure if I get lazy and don't vote, it could correspond in a national election to maybe 250,000 other voters doing the same thing. So if I do vote, even though it really seems like my one vote can't possibly matter, it could go the same way as those other 250,000 people. (NB: I don't mean this literally! I'm under no delusions that my behavior somehow affects 250,000 other voters.)

[roger]

I agree, if you don't understand the issues, or don't like the choices, why should you vote?

I actually agree that voting may not make much difference. So many of the big policies are driven by the ideologies of the party in control. A politician will not veer from them for fear of losing their constituency. If corn subsidies is big with party X in your state, expect Senator Y of party X to vote for them not matter what.

You make differences in other ways - at a national level mainly by entering into the debate - by swaying opinions. But even there I'm of the (admittedly unsupported) opinion that things are going to fall out how they are going to fall out; it's the rare person that can swing a country.

Look at, say, gay rights. Yes, it's politicians that are going to be eventually voting to enhance these rights. But they will only be doing it as public opinion changes - eventually it will be an outrageous thought to keep a gay couple from marrying, and the holdouts will be swayed. But the change will come from the change in public opinion, not from the courageous actions of the politicians.

Against that we have counterexamples, especially when we have great leadership, but the general flow of things is from public opinion to policies, not the other way around.

[jimbob]

For the first time in a UK election, I have a vote is a constituency that isn't a foregone conclusion. Feels good!

I vote in rather the same way as I sing in the choir. No one vote (or voice) makes the difference, but at the same time nobody else's vote (or voice) is more important than mine. Only by taking part does the music happen.

However - Tories, LibDems, Labour voters, please, please feel free to believe that your votes don't matter and there's no point. That would make me very very happy.... :D

Rolfe.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/constituency/1022/high-peak
same here, except that in 2001 the Labour majority was pretty large.

I still haven't deceided for whom I will be voting. Labour suck on civil liberties, Tories aren't much better, Lib dems are third.

[Rolfe]

To be honest, my constituency is a Tory/Labour marginal, which will probably squeeze out the other parties.

I dislike Labour and the Tories pretty much equally though, so as usual I'll be voting for the party I prefer.

Rolfe.

[Darat]

Scottish Senior Citizens Unity Party ? :duck:

[andyandy]

With the election in the UK coming up, I come across more and more people who state that they are not going to vote, that there isn't much point, that 'nothing will change'. I find this deeply depressing, and more than a little annoying. However, I can't really give back a good response. I find the classic: 'people died for the right to vote' not all that compelling when you consider that people die for many things we take for granted. If I choose not to eat for a few days, you are unlikely to tell me 'people die for food' all around the world. So please give me- oh jref brains- a good argument as to why joe bloggs from the street should vote.

well, part of the problem is the political system.....

1) Lots of people live in constituencies where their vote genuinely won't matter, you could announce the results today for (i reckon) at least half of all constituencies....

2) We have a choice between 2 centre right parties who can win. Labour who have fecked up the country or the Tories who will probably do so even more....There is little in the way of ideology - it's cynical power-orientated politics - what to do to get in power, what to do to remain in power.....

3) Voters are just completely sick to death of the corruption, venality, egotism and dishonesty displayed by MPs from across the political spectrum

That's not to say people shouldn't vote, but I can understand why people are turned off by politics. And ultimately that's down to our political system itself.

I'm going to vote for the Greens. Is it going to matter? No. Will the Greens win a seat in my constituency? Not a hope in hell. Will they return a single seat to Westminster? Unlikely. I'll do it for the principle that i should vote. But there won't be a whole lot of difference between me doing that and me staying at home in terms of political effect...

[Architect]

Well, in our constituency we're rid of the clown who was Minister for Defence until recently so I don't know if it's the shoe-in it once was. SNP victory in the Scottish Parliament, SNP in the local authority, but how much of that was tactical voting?

Of course, I'm supporting the conservatives south of the Border, what with it being the quickest way to Scottish independence......

[Greg_in_CO]

In the 1998 election for governor in Colorado, Bill Owens defeated Gail Schoettler by 8,297 votes which for that year worked out to 2.5 votes per precinct. I use this example when I talk to someone who says their vote doesn't matter.

[andyandy]

an added thought,

If we actually had a None of the Above option, then people who want to exercise their right to vote but feel unrepresented by all parties can still be included in the political system.

If NoA gets the highest proportion of the votes then no candidate is elected and a byelection must be called within (say) 3 months....

[Rolfe]

Well, in our constituency we're rid of the clown who was Minister for Defence until recently so I don't know if it's the shoe-in it once was. SNP victory in the Scottish Parliament, SNP in the local authority, but how much of that was tactical voting?

Of course, I'm supporting the conservatives south of the Border, what with it being the quickest way to Scottish independence......


That's all very well, but if they do well, we're stuck with that waste of oxygen Mundell. On the other hand, you should see the other guy. And I wouldn't vote for Cat Bat on a bet, either.

Rolfe.

[Rat]

However - Tories, LibDems, Labour voters, please, please feel free to believe that your votes don't matter and there's no point. That would make me very very happy.... :D
I'm fairly sure that such a tack would leave us in this constituency with the BNP candidate. SNP might be somewhat different from BNP (;)), but it's still not tempting. I don't mean to imply that the BNP get anything other than a negligible vote here (I'm not sure they even field a Harborough candidate), but they got some votes next door in Blaby (Lawson's old constituency) last time, and I'm not taking the risk.

[Undesired Walrus]

an added thought,

If we actually had a None of the Above option, then people who want to exercise their right to vote but feel unrepresented by all parties can still be included in the political system.

If NoA gets the highest proportion of the votes then no candidate is elected and a byelection must be called within (say) 3 months....

We have it. It's spoiling your ballot, and it's counted and acknowledged.

[Francesca R]

Two-horse in my 'hood (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/constituency/1047/islington-south-and-finsbury). Without apologies to those irked by tactical voting, this means if I want Labour, I vote Labour; if I want Tory I vote LibDem, and if I want LibDem I don't worry about it.

[Francesca R]

We have it. It's spoiling your ballot, and it's counted and acknowledged.I've never heard of "Spoiled Ballot" coming first. If it did then I doubt it would mean re-open nominations.

[Redtail]

With the election in the UK coming up, I come across more and more people who state that they are not going to vote, that there isn't much point, that 'nothing will change'. I find this deeply depressing, and more than a little annoying. However, I can't really give back a good response. I find the classic: 'people died for the right to vote' not all that compelling when you consider that people die for many things we take for granted.

Understandable, however in my case (as I've mentioned a few times before) My grandfathers fought in WWII despite being turned away from the polls many times so my parents and aunts and uncles would have a better chance to vote.
My grandmother was very active in the civil rights movement and she walked with a limp til the day she died due to fire hoses and billy clubs so my cousins and I could vote without having to worry about that.

If you don't want to fine but I, at least, owe them.


If I choose not to eat for a few days, you are unlikely to tell me 'people die for food' all around the world. So please give me- oh jref brains- a good argument as to why joe bloggs from the street should vote.

Heh. Grandma used to say "Boy people all around the world starvin to death and you can't eat your green beans!?!?"

[Leif Roar]

"If you don't vote, you won't have the right to complain about the sitting politicians on the Internet."

[Beerina]

With the election in the UK coming up, I come across more and more people who state that they are not going to vote, that there isn't much point, that 'nothing will change'. I find this deeply depressing, and more than a little annoying. However, I can't really give back a good response. I find the classic: 'people died for the right to vote' not all that compelling when you consider that people die for many things we take for granted. If I choose not to eat for a few days, you are unlikely to tell me 'people die for food' all around the world. So please give me- oh jref brains- a good argument as to why joe bloggs from the street should vote.

I'm with Jeff Greenfield. Stay home. Don't muck up the vote with a choice you don't really care about. Let those who care decide.

[Raconteur]

I'm in another constituency where the outcome is a foregone conclusion (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/constituency/1172/derbyshire-north-east). I still plan on voting though, as this is the first general election I've been old enough to vote in.

[Ivor the Engineer]

The impact of a single vote is so small it is perfectly rational not to vote.

http://timharford.com/2007/11/your-vote-doesn%E2%80%99t-count/

...

I am not making an argument about the miracle of the market, but about the limits of politics. Democracy has many virtues, but giving influence to the individual voter is not one of them. Notoriously, an individual’s vote makes no difference to anything. According to the British election watcher David Boothroyd, in 24 general elections since 1918, each spanning hundreds of parliamentary constituencies (most recently, 646), there has only ever been one valid election where your vote could have made a difference: A.J. Flint was elected as Labour MP for Ilkeston in 1931 by just two votes. (The other two-vote victory, in 1997, was declared void.) Even in 1931, the Ilkeston swing voter would not have influenced government policy: the Tories won about three times as many seats as all the other parties put together.

In the US, there is a similar story: the closest presidential race in history, Bush-Gore in 2000, still had a margin of more than 500 votes in Florida.

...

On the other hand, what would send a louder message to our politicians than no one voting for any of them?

:)

[GreyArea]

Does any place in Britain have the single-transferable vote, also known as instant runoff?

STV/IRV is one way to address the spoiler problem. That might encourage more people who support minor parties to vote, and some of these people would leave a second choice and sway the outcome in a direction somewhat more to their liking.

This could really make a difference in a district as evenly-balanced as Francesca's, and it might even change the dynamics where Darat lives.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

The impact of a single vote is so small it is perfectly rational not to vote.

Elaborate. If that quote is your reason, it is silly. The power of one's vote isn't measured by whether you break a tie or not, that would be ridiculously narrow definition that serves no purpose but to rationalize a reason for one to not vote.

On the other hand, what would send a louder message to our politicians than no one voting for any of them?

:)

That's not a message, it is in fact the opposite of a message. The politicians will be busy spending their political capital to fulfil their mandates, not mind-reading why X% of people didn't vote.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Does any place in Britain have the single-transferable vote, also known as instant runoff?

STV/IRV is one way to address the spoiler problem. That might encourage more people who support minor parties to vote, and some of these people would leave a second choice and sway the outcome in a direction somewhat more to their liking.

This could really make a difference in a district as evenly-balanced as Francesca's, and it might even change the dynamics where Darat lives.

I am pretty sure the Scots use an Additional Member System for their parliament, and STV locally, but I know Westminster doesn't. The Electoral Reform Society has been around since 1888 and John Cleese made a video video and there is still no proportional representation. Though depending on the House of Lords, there could be an referendum on AV in about one year.

[Ivor the Engineer]

Elaborate. If that quote is your reason, it is silly. The power of one's vote isn't measured by whether you break a tie or not, that would be ridiculously narrow definition that serves no purpose but to rationalize a reason for one to not vote.

The power of a person's vote is measured by how likely their vote swings the outcome of the election in the direction the voter wants. As the vast majority of elections are won with a majority of far more than a 2 votes, the chances of any one vote altering the outcome are vanishingly small.

Here's a more detailed article on the subject:

http://www.slate.com/id/2107240/

That's not a message, it is in fact the opposite of a message. The politicians will be busy spending their political capital to fulfil their mandates, not mind-reading why X% of people didn't vote.

I disagree. I think it would send shock waves around the world that a population was so disaffected with the view of the future its politicians were offering that no one bothered to vote for any of them.

[funk de fino]

I am pretty sure the Scots use an Additional Member System for their parliament, and STV locally, but I know Westminster doesn't. The Electoral Reform Society has been around since 1888 and John Cleese made a video video and there is still no proportional representation. Though depending on the House of Lords, there could be an referendum on AV in about one year.

We have first past the post area MSPs and also party list MP's based on how many votes the party gets in certain regions. Mixed member proportional representation system. It has led to coalition govts.

The Liberal Dems had 11 constituency MSP whereas the Conservatives only had 4. But then the totals for each are 17 for Cons and 16 for Libs due to the extra list MSPs.

I am sure Gordon Brown was looking to bring some type of reform in down South.

[funk de fino]

The power of a person's vote is measured by how likely their vote swings the outcome of the election in the direction the voter wants. As the vast majority of elections are won with a majority of far more than a 2 votes, the chances of any one vote altering the outcome are vanishingly small.

Here's a more detailed article on the subject:

http://www.slate.com/id/2107240/



I disagree. I think it would send shock waves around the world that a population was so disaffected with the view of the future its politicians were offering that no one bothered to vote for any of them.

April Fool yeh?

[Tsukasa Buddha]

The power of a person's vote is measured by how likely their vote swings the outcome of the election in the direction the voter wants. As the vast majority of elections are won with a majority of far more than a 2 votes, the chances of any one vote altering the outcome are vanishingly small.

Here's a more detailed article on the subject:

http://www.slate.com/id/2107240/



I disagree. I think it would send shock waves around the world that a population was so disaffected with the view of the future its politicians were offering that no one bothered to vote for any of them.

So your nonvote only has power when a large enough group of people choose similarly... Hmmm.... sounds so familiar :p .

[Ivor the Engineer]

April Fool yeh?

Sadly no.

The elephant in the room that no politician or political party of significance wants to seriously address is how to stop the rich and wealthy accelerating away from the poor and middle income members of society. Any ideas why that is?

I suggest the maximum donation from any one individual or organisation to a political party is capped at £100.

[gnome]

Ivor--the logical flaw in your argument, is that, extended Kant-style, it makes the case that nobody should vote. Kind of undermines itself, doesn't it? Seems like the equivalent of "Nobody ever goes there because it's too crowded."

As someone else pointed out, a chorus doesn't change on one voice, but it needs each voice in order to exist at all.

[jimbob]

I know somebody who persuaded his six housemates to vote in Winchester (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winchester_by-election,_1997) in the 1997 general election

They all voted lib-dem, and the initial election result was a win by 2-votes (the election was later declared void)

[Fishstick]

Cause it's mandatory.

[Damien Evans]

Cause it's mandatory.

exactly. I get a fine if i don't vote.

[Francesca R]

the logical flaw in your argument, is that, extended Kant-style, it makes the case that nobody should vote. Kind of undermines itself, doesn't it?No, it is self-limiting (and thus not "Kant style"). At some critical level of low turnout, the influence of one person increases enough to make it rational for them to vote. I don't know where the threshold is, but it's going to be before turnout shrinks to 1.

Seems like the equivalent of "Nobody ever goes there because it's too crowded."Your extended version is the equivalent of that. But reality isn't.

[Francesca R]

Does any place in Britain have the single-transferable vote, also known as instant runoff?The election for Mayor of London is the only one I've voted in that uses this.

[Francesca R]

Anyone think you should be able to auction off your vote?

[gnome]

No, it is self-limiting (and thus not "Kant style"). At some critical level of low turnout, the influence of one person increases enough to make it rational for them to vote. I don't know where the threshold is, but it's going to be before turnout shrinks to 1.

I can't think of an "n" for turnout that makes it rational to vote, where an "n+1" fails. Or even "n+10" or any number you pick. I am not understanding the significance of this proposed threshhold.

Can you provide an example?