
Stop telling people to vote - fogus
http://www.jwz.org/blog/2012/11/stop-telling-people-to-vote/
======
geuis
I take a diametrically opposed viewpoint to this. Everyone should be
_required_ to vote. In Australia, among other nations, if you don't vote you
pay a fine. Voting in the U.S. should be as mandatory as jury duty, if not
more so.

When you are _required_ to do something, and when all of your peers, family,
and friends are required to do the same thing, it generates a much greater
discussion around it.

There's this view in the US that voting is a right, not a privilege. When you
treat something as non-valuable, then its much easier to take that thing away.
Thinking of something as a privilege like borrowing your parents' car when
you're young or having the freedom to worship your religion of choice or not
makes it much more valuable to you. (Yes, I know that freedom of religion is a
right. Don't be pedantic and quibble. People treat the issue like a privilege,
whether its a Constitutional right or not.)

In the US, the right to bear arms is considered sacred by many. While its
referred to as a 'right', millions of Americans treat it like a privilege.
When someone threatens to take that away, people are rather vocal about
protecting it.

So you're right, I won't tell you to vote. But I will do everything in my
power to _force_ you to vote, and to care about what you're being required to
do. This is one time that telling people to have and care about an opinion is
better for everyone.

~~~
jacques_chester
> _When you are required to do something, and when all of your peers, family,
> and friends are required to do the same thing, it generates a much greater
> discussion around it._

I'm Australian.

Compulsory voting does no such thing. Australians begrudge voting (and that we
must fully enumerate our preferences).

The pragmatic reason for having compulsory voting is to provide a better
sample of what the population wants. In effect, to dilute the crazies.

Voluntary voting is dominated by the question of _motivation_ and _ability_.
Those who are motivated and easily able to vote set the agenda.

Ever wondered why US politics is dominated by so many basically tangential
issues?

Because whether you are pro or contra, abortion / marijuana / the death
penalty / public health etc are classic issues to Get Out The vote.

And the consequences continue.

Ever wondered why US politics is about soaring rhetoric and heart-crushing
negativity?

Because the basic strategy is: inspire your own voters so they turn out ("Yes
we can!", "America is at a crossroads") and make the other guy's voters
disillusioned enough so that, while they won't vote for you, they'll just stay
at home.

Australian politics is more about transactional than transcendental issues,
simply because the great bulk of people are required to vote whether they want
to or not.

To summarise: it does not greatly improve the quality of _voters_. It improves
the quality of _outcomes_.

~~~
geuis
Whether you begrudge it or not, the majority of Australians go to the polls
when required, I assume. Generating discussion about something doesn't at all
mean its something people take joy or pride in doing. That isn't a requirement
in the equation.

Transactional voting is perfectly adequate. Its the minimum requirement you
need to have a successful democracy. It still leaves room for the politicians
that want to inspire people, or try to make them fear the other candidate,
etc. But it also makes people talk about the day to day business of getting
by. We _sorely_ are lacking that here in the US.

I don't care about improving the quality of voters implicitly. That is a side
effect of mandatory voting. Improving the outcome is the primary target.

Overall, I appreciate your comments and take the view that they illustrate and
expand on my points, rather than refute them.

~~~
jacques_chester
My point was that requiring people to vote doesn't make them discuss voting.
Most people simply aren't interested in politics in this country, unless it's
the machinations of the local footy club.

------
dllthomas
" _Corrolary: You should vote "NO" on every Proposition unless you actually
know what the fuck you're talking about. The California Proposition system is
asinine, and the way to do least harm is to reject by default._ "

This is half correct, and that half is very much my policy. If the proposition
is for something the legislature can and should be doing, I vote no; we are
paying people to give these issues more time and attention than I can afford
to.

There are three places this differs from the above, though.

1) If the proposition deals with something that hugely favors incumbents to
the point that the legislatures won't touch it for fear of job security.

2) If the proposition is for something the legislature can't do
(Constitutional amendment that really needs to be a Constitutional amendment).

3) Most significantly, there are places (raising taxes, mostly) where we have
tied the hands of our legislature with previous propositions, and require a
proposition.

For 3), my default position is yes; vote for decent legislators and let them
do their jobs.

For the first two, I try to make a point of learning enough about propositions
of that nature that I can make an intelligent decision. If I can't, however,
my default is to not vote on those measures.

On propositions for things that the legislature can and should do, I agree
whole-heartedly - vote no.

~~~
paupino_masano
No! I'd rather people don't vote than vote no on something they don't
understand... Unless you understand what you're voting for: don't vote.

No vote is better than a misinformed one...

~~~
dllthomas
> No vote is better than a misinformed one...

I precisely contend that, for certain categories of questions, that is not the
case. If we want to try to pin this down with numbers somehow, it'll have to
wait 'till morning though...

------
josnyder
jwz's thesis, that uninformed people shouldn't vote, is overwhelmingly
correct. I consider myself to be well-informed, politically speaking. Yet I
voted in only 7 of 17 races on my ballot. I am not, for example, equipped to
make informed choices for my jurisdiction's school board.

All ballots should come with a "No vote" option. What would the difference be
from just leaving it blank? Nothing, except that it would give uninformed
people a box to tick so that they don't have to stray towards the more
important ones.

With that said, his stated corollary (to vote against propositions by default)
is unhelpful and perhaps harmful. Many ballot proposals are stupid. Some
aren't. As a voter, if you don't have an informed opinion, the right move is
to leave it blank. Don't vote. Leave the job to those who have done their
homework.

~~~
bmelton
It's worse than that even. Having served as an election judge (and hence been
obliged to assist those who needed it), many people needing help will ask
"Which of these is the Republican option?" (where Republican = their party
affiliation), even on issues that weren't particularly partisan, or national,
or that even made sense.

The tact there being that party affiliation was more important than expressing
their own choices, which isn't something that I understand in the slightest,
especially as how centrist most candidates are.

~~~
saraid216
It's pretty basic tribalism. "I am a Republican. Therefore, I will vote for
the Republican option, unless I have an actual reason not to."

In front of that, there's probably, "My parents were Republican. My family is
Republican. My friends are Republican." And so on.

%s/Republican/Democrat/g

This isn't actually wrong, per se. It's a basic affirmation of trust in one's
close network. Some people go to church without bothering to believe in God;
they go because they've always gone and their parents go and their friends are
there and they discuss the football game or whatever. They're passionate about
things because all of their friends are passionate about it.

------
kevinh
It's amusing that jwz brings up the California Proposition system and says
that you should vote no on everything when that _itself_ is an uninformed
statement to make. Even if you want to keep the status quo, simply voting no
on every is not necessarily the correct decision.

In California all referendums (still named propositions on the ballot) are
flipped. That is, voting YES means that you want to keep the status quo and
voting NO means you want to change it.

I think uninformed people voting no across the board is what caused
Proposition 40, a referendum dropped by those who originally proposed it, to
get 27% voting no, despite absolutely no one being on the no side.

------
brennenHN
The implied supremacy and paternalism in the post is pretty problematic.

What is your threshold for informed?

Should we have tests at the polls to make sure people have researched before
they vote?

Do you really want to make a case for an "informed" electorate instead of a
more representative one?

I know this post isn't saying to deny the vote to the "uninformed", just not
to encourage them, but that sentiment implies a) that those people and their
opinions are less valuable and b) that the atmosphere of excitement around
civic duty which accompanies those posts is itself a problem. I would reject
both of those premises.

~~~
gojomo
Actually, the implied threshold is self-assessment. JWZ is suggesting: if you
don't feel like you know or care enough to vote, feel free to not vote.

That's actually pretty fair and efficient.

~~~
jkn
Looks like a very bad idea to me, since people who know more are more likely
to think they don't know enough (e.g. Dunning-Kruger effect).

------
jiggy2011
Ok, so please define "informed".

Political opinion seems to suffer from an especially savage form of
Dunning–Kruger. Often are the most steadfast and vocal in their opinions and
the least objective.

Let's say for example, the economy. Maybe one party suggests lowering taxes on
the "middle class" to stimulate spending and the other guy wants to make sure
we don't tax the "job creators" so that they don't move overseas.

How am I supposed to know which is best? Do I need a degree in Keynesian
economics or can I just listen to a few talking heads on the local news?

~~~
dobro
> _How am I supposed to know which is best? Do I need a degree in Keynesian
> economics or can I just listen to a few talking heads on the local news?_

You're not supposed to vote for what is "best".

You are supposed to vote for what you WANT to happen.

It could be the worst thing for the country but very good for you. That's OK
too, if a tad selfish.

Now, if you don't know what you want or what is good for you, you still get to
decide. Anything major that will be legislated, like taxes, WILL affect you.
So, what would you do if you don't know which option is the best? What you do
in every similar situation in life:

a) User your direct knowledge. b) Use your experience. c) Try to learn for
other people that know that stuff. d) Discuss it with others in general. e)
Read up on the issue. d) When everything fails, just your gut.

You'll have to suffer any consequences anyway.

And it's not like you can just have people with "degrees" and experts to make
your opinion, or have the only right to vote on an issue.

1) For one, because those people also have biases, personal interests and
hidden agendas. And even the non outright lying ones can be partisan, deluded,
dogmatic, ideological or simply idiots with rich dads that bought them a good
education.

2) Second, YOU'LL suffer from the consequences of any law, so it's YOUR
decision to make, not theirs.

------
libovness
There are more sophisticated arguments than this one for not voting. Among
them, even if you believe in a particular cause, you can probably accomplish
more for that cause in the hours it takes to vote by doing something other
than voting: <http://www.artoftheory.com/the-ethics-of-voting/>

Another reason: Those who are not merely voting among party lines are
childish, superficial, and even reptilian, when it comes to picking
candidates: <http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S19/28/30C37/>

------
LVB
This is a non-issue, because they're clearly not listening (at least in the
US).

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout#International_dif...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout#International_differences)

~~~
corin_
48% turn-out doesn't mean people are listening, it could be that if so much
effort didn't go into persuading people to vote that far fewer people would.

------
gojomo
I'm happy to see someone take a stand against rampant, patronizing Non-Voter
Intimidation.

Non-voting can be a sign of a healthy system: "Everything's working pretty
good; I'm OK with either choice, or whatever my fellow citizens select."

------
dreamdu5t
Better yet: Stop voters telling me to obey whatever they voted on.

------
antidoh
"Fuck you."

Oh, OK then.

------
Aloha
I'm quite fond of requiring people to take the citizenship test before being
granted their rights as citizens - including voting.

------
readymade
News Flash Corner: there is always somebody who thinks your electoral opinion
is line noise in the system.

------
johnny22
i always got the implied "we dont' care who you vote for" not just vote
without being informed.

