Hipparchia
Registered Senior Member
People who choose not to vote should have the good grace not to inflict their worthless opinions upon the rest of us in internet forums, bars, or any public place.
Is voting a moral duty?
- Thread starter Why?
- Start date
What is so hard to understand about combined effect?
If one person throws away an empty plastic bottle in the park, it barely makes any difference.
If a thousand people each throw away an empty plastic bottle in a park, there will be a heap of empty plastic bottles. That will definitely make a difference.
If a lot of people think that voting is of no use, and thus do not vote, then the combined effect of all those people not voting will make a difference.
Yes, but how is my single decision to vote or not to vote going to affect the conglomerate? You are simply making the argument, "well, if everyone thought that way [insert argument here]." This argument has little appeal to the individual making the decision, as the individual has no control over what everyone else does.
The individual needn't have any control over what someone else does, and I am not suggesting that the individual does have such control.
I'm saying that if a million people think "There's no point in voting, so I won't vote", this results in a million people not voting.
One person not voting is different than a million people not voting.
A million people not voting is made up of each one of these million people not voting.
One - If you still can't see how a hundred million people doing something or refraining from it makes a difference, then I'm afraid don't know what to say anymore.
Two - When many people think "it's not worth voting", this atittude spreads throughout society, and people are then less likely to vote.
The attitude "it's not worth voting" is held by each such individual. You being such an individual, and many other people.
Three - Why should you care about others? Because you do affect them, even if in a minor way.
Two - When many people think "it's not worth voting", this atittude spreads throughout society, and people are then less likely to vote.
The attitude "it's not worth voting" is held by each such individual. You being such an individual, and many other people.
Three - Why should you care about others? Because you do affect them, even if in a minor way.
You are failing to see the difference between motivating the individual and motivating the group. As an individual, your arguments about group affects are virtually meaningless to me, as my vote is inconsequential among millions of voters. Now, if I were part of a specific group attempting to wring some political influence from the group's collective voting power, then I can see your point. However, most voters aren't in such groups. And, the two groups of Republicans and Democrats are too large for any one individual to believe voting for either of those groups really makes any difference.
I would again suggest you look at the issue from the perspective that a million people or more would do the same thing as you. What would be the result then? Would your vote (and the votes of that million other people or more) matter?
The important thing here -and this is where we seem to be at an impasse- is the fact of how many people vote.
From this perspective, it should be clear what the consequences of not voting are, and thus it should also be clear that voting is a moral duty.
Hipparchia
Registered Senior Member
If the roughly 50% of the population who do not currently vote were all to turn up the polling stations to register a protest vote, I can gauruntee you the politics of our country would change.
If you choose to withold action as an individual you will endure the consequences as an individual and as a member of the group (society) to which you, no matter how reluctantly, belong.
It is your choice, but it seems an especially dumb one to me. (This is addressed to Why?., not to Greenberg. Probably obvious, but you can't tell with these non-voters.)
If you choose to withold action as an individual you will endure the consequences as an individual and as a member of the group (society) to which you, no matter how reluctantly, belong.
It is your choice, but it seems an especially dumb one to me. (This is addressed to Why?., not to Greenberg. Probably obvious, but you can't tell with these non-voters.)
I bet the results would be the same - even if every eligible voter voted. Don't the pre-election polls of eligible voters give you a fairly good idea of who is going to win? It wouldn't matter if all the eligible voters showed up at the polls, because the pre-election polls have already taken them into account and so have the politicians. Only in very close elections would it make any difference.
In the US, at least, all polls show us to be closely divided. We're pretty much a 50/50 nation right now. Any election can be decided by turnout. Get people like you to show up, and you can decide an election. Consider the 2000 election. Millions of votes cast, and it was decided by about 500 votes! One guy canvasing his town could have rounded up 500 votes!
You didn't understand what I said. There's not enough diversity to choose from. If you don't agree with X and you don't agree with Y, you have nothing to choose from. You either choose the one that is least far away or you don't vote at all. That's the problem. Besides, what good it is to have a "divided nation".
People should not be forced to vote.
Only people with some understanding and interest in the parties and outcome should vote.
Everyone should be ALLOWED to vote, although if I was in charge it would only be the educated middle class, therefore eliminating corruption and coersion of voters whether overt or otherwise.
*does stupid dance*
Only people with some understanding and interest in the parties and outcome should vote.
Everyone should be ALLOWED to vote, although if I was in charge it would only be the educated middle class, therefore eliminating corruption and coersion of voters whether overt or otherwise.
*does stupid dance*
Voting is mandatory in some countries, Brazil is one off the top of my head.
People who can't be bothered will just tick a random box. Then there are those who just vote for the one who gives out t-shirts and looks the nicest. Stupid crap like that. The truth is that most of the population are either too stupid to understand, or are uninterested. That goes for EVERY country.
That is why voting should not be required.
People who can't be bothered will just tick a random box. Then there are those who just vote for the one who gives out t-shirts and looks the nicest. Stupid crap like that. The truth is that most of the population are either too stupid to understand, or are uninterested. That goes for EVERY country.
That is why voting should not be required.
This is different, though, than just the question of whether voting is a moral duty or not.
Now you're talking about voting in a particular situation where the votes are projected to be divided almost evenly. This, however, is a matter of accepting that this simply is the state of the country. With this in mind, it should be even more of an imperative to vote, as even a small number of votes can change the election results.
As for there not being enough diversity and therefore some people refusing to vote:
In some countries, there is a minimum number of voters defined that must vote in the election, if the election is to be valid. If not enough voters vote, that election is nullified, and repeated.
But I'm not sure what this really solves.
It seems that life on Earth isn't about choosing between the good and the bad, but about choosing between the greater evil and the lesser evil.