I used to be an organizer for the Green Party so I am capable of very cynical views of the electoral system but also going door to door to get signatures, running candidates, etc.
In local races, even up to the state legislature level, I often know the people involved personally. I've had friends and acquaintances run for local offices as Greens, Democrats and Republicans. I even meet a congressional candidate from time to time.
For the presidential election next year the immediate thing on my mind is that I don't want to see a Hillary Clinton - Jeb Bush matchup because as much as the "Anderson-Horowitz politics" people on HN would find that easy to swallow, it would set a very bad precedent for our country.
If I actually like a mainstream candidate I will vote for them. Personally if I was in a "swing state" I might be more inclined to vote for a mainstream candidate but I am in the kind of state Hillary Clinton would go to get herself a solidly democratic constituency so most of the time I vote for whoever I want.
> I always vote 3rd party when available, because I know they won't win. It's a "none of the above" vote, where "above" means dems and reps.
This quote must feel like a punch in the gut to anyone who believes in that 3'rd party you voted for. They thought "look, we didn't win, but at least X number of people agree with us, we'll do better next time". They don't realize you haven't even looked at what they stood for, and it wasn't even a pity vote, it was a throwaway because you didn't feel like writing in Micky Mouse.
Yes. If I didn't vote, what incentive whatsoever would my representatives have to act in my interest? I may not have a statistically significant impact on the outcome, but neither do any of the other tens of millions of people who vote. Even if an individual vote isn't statistically significant, the aggregate of them is, and because non-voters are self-selecting we can't count on those who vote enthusiastically to be a representative sample of the opinions of the populace. Each person who makes the decision that their vote doesn't matter helps our country slide away from government by the people and towards government by corporations.
Living in a part of the US that skews VERY heavily towards one party, I especially vote in primary elections, which are where it's actually determined which congresscritter or senator we'll be sending to Washington or the state capital. And yes, I will absolutely vote my heart rather than strategically in a primary. "Electable" too often isn't.
And I make sure to vote in off-year state and local elections too because those actually have more impact on my daily quality of life in the short-term than national ones do. (Whereas national elections have more impact on the long-term direction of the country, especially when there are Supreme Court vacancies likely).
My state allows a candidate to run for office on multiple parties' slates, and will aggregate those votes for the candidate. I dislike one party much more than the other, but there are third-parties far closer to my actual positions. I'll often vote for a major-party candidate on a third-party slate, which both helps ensure that the third party remains on the ballot for the next election cycle and hopefully helps send a message to the major party in question.
"Living in a part of the US that skews VERY heavily towards one party, I especially vote in primary elections, which are where it's actually determined which congresscritter or senator we'll be sending to Washington or the state capital."
This is exactly the case in NYC, which is heavily Democratic: the winner of the Democratic primary is the most likely winner of the general election (where they sometimes even run unopposed). In the recent primary in my district, the vote for City Council member was won by a margin of a few hundred votes, since the voter turnouts for primaries are pretty sparse compared with the general election. One person's vote really makes a difference in this situation.
You mean, a few hundred people's votes really make a difference in this situation.
Voting has a bit of a free-rider problem. To a first approximation, one vote never makes a difference; but an attitude that voting doesn't make a difference (especially when unevenly distributed) definitely makes a difference.
Yes, though in the past 10-15 years I've become increasingly jaded to the point where I really wonder if it's worth it, at least at the state and national level.
Yes. But if the choice is Trump vs. Hillary, I'm going to sit that particular race out, because I could not in good conscience vote for either candidate.
There will always be at least one third-party candidate on the ballot, even if they've got zero chance of winning. By voting for that candidate you signal that you're a voter who WILL go to the polls and whom candidates should put in some effort to court, while still indicating with your fringe candidate vote that you are unwilling to support either major party candidate.
Yes, I usually vote and I've even run for public office before ( Lieutenant Governor of North Carolina, 2008, as the Libertarian candidate. I wasn't elected).
That said, I am somewhat ambivalent about voting and democracy. I think democracy is basically just a euphemism for "mob rule" and find that whatever systems you put in to try and prevent the "tyranny of the majority" never really work. And if you're on the losing end in a "democratic" system, are you really "represented"? I argue that the answer is "no". I don't hold Richard Burr, David Price, or Thom Tillis as representing me in any way. I certainly didn't vote for any of them, and would't if you paid me to.
Basically I'm a voluntaryist / anarcho-capitalist / market anarchist / whatever-term-you-prefer, who wants to eliminate most of "government" as we know it today. Note that does not mean I'm in favor of chaos or opposed to communal action (this is something critics of libertarian thought often get wrong.. seemingly intentionally at times). I just want voluntary exchange and self-government to be the fundamental basis for society, with use of force/violence reserved for self-defense.
I agree. I'm libertarian with a lower case "l" and not too big on democracy. I don't want my town voting on the best way to do heart surgery for me. Why do I want the masses voting on other issues that are equally important. The U.S. is so divided right now, it seems like we could stop it all by returning to more local, or at least, state governments being in charge of most things. No need to enforce rules on a gigantic number of people who are all so different.
No. My political views are extreme enough to not be represented by any candidate. My non-participation decreases the legitimacy of the current system, which I want to fail.
Why do you want the current system to fail? What do you prefer in its place? How likely do you think it is that, if the current system fails, it will be replaced by something you view as better?
Concentration of power in the hands of a single social class. Decentralized, direct democracy. Not very likely, but I see myself benefiting from the disruption.
No. Looks like only people who do feel like commenting here. I guess people who don't, like me, might just not care about it. Kinda like asking people who don't believe in God why they don't.
Yes, I might not think I'd make a difference, I don't have anybody to vote for, I don't think parliament members make much of a difference, I'm not crazy about democracy etc etc. But in the end I guess I just don't care.
If there was a special party or person that I'd really believe to be a game changer, I might. If I was American I would perhaps vote next year depending on who gets the Republican nomination.
Why: I have a serious medical condition which limits how much I can take on. I spent a lot of years as a military wife and devoted mother, raising two special needs sons. This was just a helluva lot of work, more than most people seem to appreciate. Trying to stay up on The Issues was just not something I could manage. My plate was overly full as is. I saw no reason to vote if my choices were not based on some kind of meaningful information or opinion.
From what I gather, you see higher rates of voting and political activity in older people, precisely because their plate is less full (with launching a career, finding romance, raising kids, etc). It is possible that as I get older and my life works better, I may someday feel able to effectively participate in the process. I haven't made any decisions one way or the other. It wasn't a Stance. It was happenstance.
Yes. If I don't vote, I have no right to bitch about whatever scumbag takes over a given office for the next term.
Also, I might be naive enough to think that if I vote despite my cynicism and outspokenness against the shit politicians pull, maybe - just maybe - I might inspire just one other person to vote. And if I manage to do that, maybe they'll inspire someone else and eventually people will start engaging with politics again, instead of just handing the reins over to the people that stand to gain the most from voter disenfranchisement.
> Yes. If I don't vote, I have no right to bitch about whatever scumbag takes over a given office for the next term.
Please. When our choices are a turd sandwich and a douchebag, we absolutely have the right to complain.
“Whether it is exerted by ten men or ten billion, political authority is force … the power of the Rods and the Ax” - Robert Heinlein, Starship Troopers
> Yes. If I don't vote, I have no right to bitch about whatever scumbag takes over a given office for the next term.
That's actually the opposite.
By voting, you agree to the rules of the system. If you truly believe in democracy, then you should be more than happy to see the one getting the most votes win the elections. That's pretty much how the thing works.
Any person who votes and then complains about the results is an hypocrite.
"Bitching about whatever scumbag takes over a given office for the next term" is pretty much like complaining about losing the lottery. It's not very reasonable.
It's not as if by not voting you're somehow going against they system, as "the system" (assuming we're talking about the US) does not require voting. It is not an act of rebellion or protest. It's simply inaction. It is quite literally the least you can do.
Yes. I believe it to be a civic privilege and duty. My mother comes from a country where (for her gender and religion) her civil freedoms were severely restricted and I think it is important to engage in the process even if you don't like the options. I believe a void vote is better than no vote at all and I think real engagement to change the system is the best (although a difficult) solution to the "no one represents me" argument.
Yes, because I believe the economy can be a more "fair" place, and that everyone should have a minimum quality of life (voting for Bernie Sanders in 2016).
I devote about 5 or so percent of my free time to civics. This means learning about my local options, who actually can impact my life in notable and significant ways, as well as just being active. Being active means doing advocacy actions, the occasional trip to the State capitol, phone banking, GOTV efforts of various kinds, etc...
I sure wish I knew how to convince more 20 somethings to vote.
I always pray for a blizzard on election day. When there's bad weather, a lot of the low-information types who are only voting because they want the "I voted!" sticker, will stay home. At least that's my theory.
Nope. Not legally allowed to vote in my birth country, since I've been away too long, and not legally allowed to vote in the country I currently live in, since I'm not a citizen.
I have to admit I don't see much point voting on a state, congressional, or federal level when living in areas that are completely skewed in favor of a single political party. Were I able to vote, perhaps I'd vote in the primaries.
It doesn't bother me too much - when I really care about an issue, which isn't that often, I call a politician's office or two and donate something to an appropriate PAC. That's probably more effective than voting directly.
I think voting should be obvious and a much better question would be: do you vote the candidate you really want or the least bad of the candidates that could actually be elected? (In parliamentary democracies with many parties).
No, because I see no parties any more. Because there are no philosophies, no ideologies any more. There are only group of people who put up an appearance of separate parties to engage in the farce called election. After it is over, they go back to the ruling/opposing party drama, while collaborating and robbing people at the back.
This was an option that was successfully won for many years over (sometimes concurrently, sometimes not) for the Student Union at my first university, Imperial College London.
Yes, but I rarely get any pleasure from it. If I want to feel like an active participant in a democracy it typically takes a bit more than that.
Going to city council meetings, canvassing for candidates, collecting signatures for propositions, etc...those all feel a bit more impactful than voting...but I feel like a hypocrite doing any of those things if I myself don't actually vote...so I vote too.
I refuse to support a system that legitimates the voice of the majority. There is little to no correlation between what the majority has been led to believe is right, and what is actually right.
That said, I could see myself voting for a party that (intentionally or not) would reveal the ridicule of democracy, a party that undisputedly wouldn't be fit to rule the country.
I believe that democracy does not scale beyond roughly several hundred voters of roughly equal expertise and ability. I decide whether or not to vote accordingly, which means saying no to local and national elections.
That said, I vote on Hacker News stories. Could HN be an example of a moderated democracy (constitutional monarchy?) working well on a larger scale?
Subquestion, for those in the US who show up at the polling place on election day: Do you educate yourself about local positions and vote there as well (or only?)? Or do you limit yourself to voting for those on the national stage (who, of course, get more press)?
53 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 95.8 ms ] threadI used to be an organizer for the Green Party so I am capable of very cynical views of the electoral system but also going door to door to get signatures, running candidates, etc.
In local races, even up to the state legislature level, I often know the people involved personally. I've had friends and acquaintances run for local offices as Greens, Democrats and Republicans. I even meet a congressional candidate from time to time.
For the presidential election next year the immediate thing on my mind is that I don't want to see a Hillary Clinton - Jeb Bush matchup because as much as the "Anderson-Horowitz politics" people on HN would find that easy to swallow, it would set a very bad precedent for our country.
Cynical?
I always vote 3rd party when available, because I know they won't win. It's a "none of the above" vote, where "above" means dems and reps.
If I actually like a mainstream candidate I will vote for them. Personally if I was in a "swing state" I might be more inclined to vote for a mainstream candidate but I am in the kind of state Hillary Clinton would go to get herself a solidly democratic constituency so most of the time I vote for whoever I want.
This quote must feel like a punch in the gut to anyone who believes in that 3'rd party you voted for. They thought "look, we didn't win, but at least X number of people agree with us, we'll do better next time". They don't realize you haven't even looked at what they stood for, and it wasn't even a pity vote, it was a throwaway because you didn't feel like writing in Micky Mouse.
Living in a part of the US that skews VERY heavily towards one party, I especially vote in primary elections, which are where it's actually determined which congresscritter or senator we'll be sending to Washington or the state capital. And yes, I will absolutely vote my heart rather than strategically in a primary. "Electable" too often isn't.
And I make sure to vote in off-year state and local elections too because those actually have more impact on my daily quality of life in the short-term than national ones do. (Whereas national elections have more impact on the long-term direction of the country, especially when there are Supreme Court vacancies likely).
My state allows a candidate to run for office on multiple parties' slates, and will aggregate those votes for the candidate. I dislike one party much more than the other, but there are third-parties far closer to my actual positions. I'll often vote for a major-party candidate on a third-party slate, which both helps ensure that the third party remains on the ballot for the next election cycle and hopefully helps send a message to the major party in question.
(Edited for typos.)
This is exactly the case in NYC, which is heavily Democratic: the winner of the Democratic primary is the most likely winner of the general election (where they sometimes even run unopposed). In the recent primary in my district, the vote for City Council member was won by a margin of a few hundred votes, since the voter turnouts for primaries are pretty sparse compared with the general election. One person's vote really makes a difference in this situation.
Voting has a bit of a free-rider problem. To a first approximation, one vote never makes a difference; but an attitude that voting doesn't make a difference (especially when unevenly distributed) definitely makes a difference.
That said, I am somewhat ambivalent about voting and democracy. I think democracy is basically just a euphemism for "mob rule" and find that whatever systems you put in to try and prevent the "tyranny of the majority" never really work. And if you're on the losing end in a "democratic" system, are you really "represented"? I argue that the answer is "no". I don't hold Richard Burr, David Price, or Thom Tillis as representing me in any way. I certainly didn't vote for any of them, and would't if you paid me to.
Basically I'm a voluntaryist / anarcho-capitalist / market anarchist / whatever-term-you-prefer, who wants to eliminate most of "government" as we know it today. Note that does not mean I'm in favor of chaos or opposed to communal action (this is something critics of libertarian thought often get wrong.. seemingly intentionally at times). I just want voluntary exchange and self-government to be the fundamental basis for society, with use of force/violence reserved for self-defense.
Yes, I might not think I'd make a difference, I don't have anybody to vote for, I don't think parliament members make much of a difference, I'm not crazy about democracy etc etc. But in the end I guess I just don't care.
If there was a special party or person that I'd really believe to be a game changer, I might. If I was American I would perhaps vote next year depending on who gets the Republican nomination.
Why: I have a serious medical condition which limits how much I can take on. I spent a lot of years as a military wife and devoted mother, raising two special needs sons. This was just a helluva lot of work, more than most people seem to appreciate. Trying to stay up on The Issues was just not something I could manage. My plate was overly full as is. I saw no reason to vote if my choices were not based on some kind of meaningful information or opinion.
From what I gather, you see higher rates of voting and political activity in older people, precisely because their plate is less full (with launching a career, finding romance, raising kids, etc). It is possible that as I get older and my life works better, I may someday feel able to effectively participate in the process. I haven't made any decisions one way or the other. It wasn't a Stance. It was happenstance.
Also, I might be naive enough to think that if I vote despite my cynicism and outspokenness against the shit politicians pull, maybe - just maybe - I might inspire just one other person to vote. And if I manage to do that, maybe they'll inspire someone else and eventually people will start engaging with politics again, instead of just handing the reins over to the people that stand to gain the most from voter disenfranchisement.
Please. When our choices are a turd sandwich and a douchebag, we absolutely have the right to complain.
“Whether it is exerted by ten men or ten billion, political authority is force … the power of the Rods and the Ax” - Robert Heinlein, Starship Troopers
OP - really good words! Tempted to print the whole passage and hang in the office :) .
If you don't vote, and it's an active choice you've made, you're rejecting the system. That's a valid choice.
(Having said that I vote in English local and national elections).
That's actually the opposite.
By voting, you agree to the rules of the system. If you truly believe in democracy, then you should be more than happy to see the one getting the most votes win the elections. That's pretty much how the thing works.
Any person who votes and then complains about the results is an hypocrite.
"Bitching about whatever scumbag takes over a given office for the next term" is pretty much like complaining about losing the lottery. It's not very reasonable.
I devote about 5 or so percent of my free time to civics. This means learning about my local options, who actually can impact my life in notable and significant ways, as well as just being active. Being active means doing advocacy actions, the occasional trip to the State capitol, phone banking, GOTV efforts of various kinds, etc...
I sure wish I knew how to convince more 20 somethings to vote.
I have to admit I don't see much point voting on a state, congressional, or federal level when living in areas that are completely skewed in favor of a single political party. Were I able to vote, perhaps I'd vote in the primaries.
It doesn't bother me too much - when I really care about an issue, which isn't that often, I call a politician's office or two and donate something to an appropriate PAC. That's probably more effective than voting directly.
This was an option that was successfully won for many years over (sometimes concurrently, sometimes not) for the Student Union at my first university, Imperial College London.
Going to city council meetings, canvassing for candidates, collecting signatures for propositions, etc...those all feel a bit more impactful than voting...but I feel like a hypocrite doing any of those things if I myself don't actually vote...so I vote too.
I refuse to support a system that legitimates the voice of the majority. There is little to no correlation between what the majority has been led to believe is right, and what is actually right.
That said, I could see myself voting for a party that (intentionally or not) would reveal the ridicule of democracy, a party that undisputedly wouldn't be fit to rule the country.
That said, I vote on Hacker News stories. Could HN be an example of a moderated democracy (constitutional monarchy?) working well on a larger scale?