Is An Uninformed Vote Better Than No Vote?

ras_b asks: "I don't pay attention to politics at all, and so I will not be voting in today's elections. My family has been telling me that this is a mistake and I should vote anyway, partly because I have slightly conservative views which agrees with their political outlook. My reasoning is that since I am totally uninformed, I shouldn't vote. I don't want to vote Republican or Democrat, only to find out later I totally disagree with something a candidate stands for. So, here's my dilemma and my question: Is an uninformed vote better than no vote?" This issue is touched upon in a posting by Ezra Klein, of the The American Prospect, who disagrees, arguing against a similar assertion by Greg Mankiw, from a suppressed Fortune article. Greg says: "Sometimes...the most responsible thing a person can do on election day is stay at home ... If you really don't know enough to cast an intelligent vote, you should be eager to let your more informed neighbors make the decision." What do you think?

Comments

Has no affect

[2.7182]

Assuming a uniform probability distribution on parties, they will cancel each other out.

Re:Has no affect

[Anonymous Coward]

...cancel each other out.

Like choosing between a Douche and a Turd

Re:Has no affect

[OakDragon]

Something I read over lunch today was germane to this discussion. As I was ready to post the link, I read your comment first thing.

The link: http://www.cato-unbound.org/2006/11/06/bryan-capla n/the-myth-of-the-rational-voter/

Quote from the first paragraph:

There's an election tomorrow. Do voters know what they're doing? According to the typical economist -- and many political scientists -- the answer is "No, but it doesn't matter." How could it not matter? The main argument is that the public's errors cancel out.

Re:Has no affect

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod that up to +5. If enough people just "vote randomly" then the effect will, by the law of large numbers and/or the asymptotic equipartition property and/or (insert impressive mathematical/statistical result here), contribute uniformly to either side, thus cancelling out as the parent says. This also moves the vote closer to 50/50, but doesn't affect the victory margin.

Re:Has no affect

[Feminist-Mom]

Right. Another way to think of it: a certain percentage of the population is blindfolded and pushes random buttons in the voting booth. Assuming they choose the buttons in a uniform way (e.g. don't tend to push the buttons all near the middle) they will have no affect.

But there could be other mathematical models of "uninfomed".

Re:Has no affect

[TrekkieGod]

Assuming a uniform probability distribution on parties, they will cancel each other out.

Which is a really bad assumption. Most districts tend to prefer a party over another. If they're uninformed about the candidates, they're likely to vote to the party that favors their views, and might end up electing a candidate that strays from the party on that one issue the community finds really important.

Re:Has no affect

[AuMatar]

You're assuming that they vote randomly. There could well be a bias to either party among the uninformed but voting anyway- we don't have enough data to tell.

Re:Has no affect

[UbuntuDupe]

Dangit, I should have made this reply here.

Re:Has no affect

[Fastolfe]

People don't normally walk in and attempt to vote in a statistically random manner. They're going to look at two names and think, "Which one should I vote for?" With no research, it's their subconscious that ends up voting. What does the subconscious rely on? Clever, well-timed, or memorable TV spots, signs, telephone calls, whatever. The voter might only really hear one issue about the candidate, and that alone determines who he will vote for. This isn't a random vote, it's a vote for the loudest candidate.

Re:Has no affect

[$0.02]

Not necessary. Irrelevant factors may determine the outcome. There may be two candidates. Their names are Michael Jordan and Scott Peterson. I don't know anything about them but the first one has a cool name while the other one very uncool. So I'll vote for the first one. I may not have any clue about George W Bush and Al Gore but I may vote for the first one just because he is son of the former prez and has the same name. I may not know anything about any candidate for the CA governor so I'll vote for the Terminator. Or I can vote for all candidates that are on the top of the ballot.

Re:Has no affect

[anagama]

"pickup-truck republican"

Re:Has no affect

[gfxguy]

But there could be other mathematical models of "uninfomed".

That's part of the problem. Let's say it's not even a candidtate, but some initiative or state constitutional ammendment; if you've only heard ONE side of the story, you're still not informed.

Or if it IS a candidate, you might be likely to have heard of the incumbant, but not the challenger, so you might select the familiar name. Or worse, all candidates have name recognition, but you've only seen one ad that bashes canditate A, so you vote for B.

These are all uninformed to the point of potential "damage".

If I may be so bold (and I guess I may), I'd even suggest a basic test in order to vote. It could be done on the electronic systems right in the booth - you should have to at least KNOW WHO'S RUNNING.

Re:Has no affect

[pclminion]

Assuming a uniform probability distribution on parties, they will cancel each other out.

Just like when you flip a coin 100 times you are guaranteed to get 50 heads and 50 tails. Oh wait, no you're not.

Re:Has no affect

[wo1verin3]

Just shut up and vote yes on prop A unless you hate families.

You don't hate family, do you?

Re:Has no affect

[Anonymous Coward]

If you flip a coin 50 million times, you can be pretty sure the result falls within 24.9-25.1M range.

Re:Has no affect

[pclminion]

If you flip a coin 50 million times, you can be pretty sure the result falls within 24.9-25.1M range.

A spread of 200,000 votes is way more than enough to have tipped many elections in US history.

Re:Has no affect

[pclminion]

Mod that up to +5. If enough people just "vote randomly" then the effect will, by the law of large numbers and/or the asymptotic equipartition property and/or (insert impressive mathematical/statistical result here), contribute uniformly to either side, thus cancelling out as the parent says. This also moves the vote closer to 50/50, but doesn't affect the victory margin.

I don't understand this "50/50" thing you mention. On the Oregon ballot, for instance, there are three candidates for Governor. Wouldn't random voting result in something closer to a triple split? Or are you saying that people who vote randomly never vote for third parties?

Re:Has no affect

[Anonymous Coward]

Just ran some numbers on binomial prob calculator, 25015000/50000000 with a 50/100 per-trial probability gives 99.99%. Extending that to a 40k range gives eight nines. Still enough to swing 2000 though. Lesson: don't flip coins to decide your vote.

http://stattrek.com/Tables/Binomial.aspx

Re:Has no affect

[Anonymous Coward]

Here in Illinois they have a bus that goes to the slums and picks up people to vote - they are actually quite organized.

Re:Has no affect

[Waffle Iron]

A spread of 200,000 votes is way more than enough to have tipped many elections in US history.

Mostly because our silly electoral college system serves as a statistical noise amplifier, often making the result swing on the closest contest out of 50 states. Thus, a nationwide election with tens of millions of voters can easily end up hinging on a few thousand votes (1960), or even a few hundred votes (2000). These tiny margins mean that the actual outcome in such years gets determined by mistakes and/or fraud, since there's no way to reduce these below such small values.

Re:Has no affect

[schmu_20mol]

Will someone please think of the children?!

Re:Has no affect

[killjoe]

This is bullshit.

First of all people who are completely uninformed don't vote. Hell MOST PEOPLE DON"T VOTE!. If somebody is voting they they are likely to same knowledge of what is going on.

All you can argue is that joe voter isn't as smart as me, doesn't know as much as me, and therefore should not vote. It's a stupid argument because it also applies to you. If you want to prevent joe from voting because he is more stupid then you or doesn't know as much as you then somebody else who is smarter and knows more will prevent you from voting. Yes there is always somebody smarter and more informed then you.

Re:Has no affect

[newt0311]

actually there is a simple solution to that. get rid of the democracy. then the only person with a vote is the one in charge. the only problemis picking that one person but revolutions & power struggels usually handle that pretty well.

Re:Has no affect

[cpeikert]

The main argument is that the public's errors cancel out.

But the whole point of the article was to debunk this argument!

Errors do not cancel out; they are systematically biased and reinforce each other.

Re:Has no affect

[DragonWriter]

charge. the only problemis picking that one person but revolutions & power struggels usually handle that pretty well.

This is only true for extremely bad values of "pretty well".

Re:Has no affect

[r_jensen11]

That is to say that the outcomes would be independent. I don't want to start a flame war, mostly because there are undoubtedly several in this thread already, but I'd be willing to gather that more intelligent and informed voters would vote differently from unintelligent, uninformed voters. Unfortunately, all of the examples I'm able to come up with are biased, so I don't feel as if I should really state them, which also goes along with the idea of:
If you don't know what the fuck is going on, get the hell out of the way

Re:Has no affect

[Anonymous Coward]

and the Republicans bus them in from churches after a good 'sermon'. Finally, the Republicans are finally going to get their asses handed to them, and that's even with their dirty tricks dept. in all out mode. The FBI is already investigating in Virgina, I expect a perp walk on the morning news.

Re:Has no affect

[AuMatar]

Since the president controls the FBI- I doubt it.

Re:Has no affect

[letxa2000]

So if the Democrats lose, Bush is to blame. If the Democrats win, it's Bush's fault that the Dems didn't win by more. Can you people even hear what you're saying? It's fun to watch.

Re:Has no affect

[dhasenan]

Perhaps.

More likely, we need an external force that acts as a brake on governments and societies. One that's willing to get its hands dirty, to act first, to do horrible things without asking for justification, not waiting until situations get out of control before intervening. But such a force would become a dictator unless it showed inhuman restraint.

Perhaps the Borg?

Re:Has no affect

[deathjestr]

With no research, it's their subconscious that ends up voting. What does the subconscious rely on? Clever, well-timed, or memorable TV spots, signs, telephone calls, whatever. I agree. It's also impossible to get any useful information from any of these ads. Since most big issues are a double-edged sword, politicians are afraid to say that they stand on side X of an issue because they don't want to alienate all the people who stand on side Y regarding that issue. The ads either turn into mudslinging contests or end up trying to sell the politician's name like it's a brand name. Telling me that a politician has 'experience' and 'integrity' in an advertisement says nothing, and only serves to help me remember the name so I'll be more familiar with it and more likely to vote for that person when I go to the polls.

Re:Has no affect

[mabhatter654]

flip side:

if you call our country a democracy, but don't use your right to vote if you can, it's not much of a democracy is it?

Re:Has no affect

[newt0311]

actually... such a force is pretty much the exact definition of a dictator. you are also quite right about the inhuman restraint part. unless a dictator is capable of restraining him/herself efectively, they wil turn the gov. into a tyranny, at which point the they start to drive their country into a hole. Actually, all governments have a problem with trying to do too much when a government should really try to do as little as possible. In a democracy, you have built-in brakes in the form of checks and balances. In a dictatorship, the brakes come from the selection process of the ruler with an above average ability to rule well. just that the democratic system depends on a bunch of possibly unqualified voters to make all the decesions is where democracy fails.

Re:Has no affect

[buswolley]

On average, Democrats are more educated than Republicans on average.

Re:Has no affect

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not simply base it on how far someone can carry a woman against her will? Of course there needs to be a preliminary selection of people eligible by the size of their khram.

Re:Has no affect

[OakDragon]

You expected me to read something before posting it here?

Actually, I posted the link because of the seeming coincidence. I really don't have much of an opinion about it though.

Let me answer your question with this statement...

[justkarl]

Informed-ness is in the eye of the beholder.

Get Informed

[AKAImBatman]

I realize that the seemingly correct thing to do is to stay at home. But all that does is ensure the tyranny of those with an agenda. This stuff isn't rocket science. There are not that many candidates to choose from, and you're chosing the lesser of two evils anyway.

Get Informed.
Get to the Ballot.
Get your vote counted.

Period, end of story.

Re:Get Informed

[Nos.]

chosing the lesser of two evils
But should I? If I really don't support any of the candidates, should I vote?

I'm a Canadian, and almost always vote. In the instances where I can't decide, I have in the past, spoiled my ballot. I'm not lazy, and trying to avoid stopping in at the polling station. Quite the opposite, I tend to research the parties, candidates, etc. before making my decision. I've voted against the major parties by picking and independent, or green party candidate, spoiled my ballot, and picked the lesser of the evils. However, I'm uncomfortable supporting any candidate if I disagree with his or her platform.

Re:Get Informed

[SimonShine]

> Get Informed.
> Get to the Ballot.
> Get your vote counted.

I agree. There will be people who are not only less informed than you, but who also disagree strongly with you, who are idiots and who will vote. By not voting, you let their votes count more. Moral: You don't have to get that informed, just make your vote count a little.

On another note, I realise why choosing between just two candidates *is* hard. In Denmark, you can vote for the party which you identify as being in your vicinity on the politcal compas. That makes voting easier (and not too much less meaningful).

Re:Get Informed

[nadamsieee]

In the US, you can use websites like USElections.com and your state's Secretary of State website to get informed.

Re:Get Informed

[Shoeler]

Well except for the fact that most Candidates seem more interested in HIDING their views these days and bashing the other person, I'd agree with you.

I live in NE Florida and I voted today for only 3 of the candidates on my ballot - governor, House seat, and Senator. I had no clue who the other people or the seats they held were, even after studying the local paper's attempt at educating me. I have a TiVo so I skip commercials (come on fellow geeks, admit it, we skip the damn commercials!) so I only see a few of the smear campaigns every day. If it were not for the local paper's run-down of what the candidates say they are for, I'd have no clue to vote for. Crist seems loathe to give any points he wishes to address, except for a smattering of crap along party principles. Davis extolls his virtuous run as a US Representative, nails a few things I'm concerned with (environmental restoration, insurance rate protections, reducing property taxes) so I voted Davis. I wanted to give them a fair shake at each other, but try as I did, I couldn't figure out what Crist was for. Of all the political ads I saw, not a one dealt with the issues the candidate wanted to make a difference for - they only slammed the other guy in some see I told ya so way. The FL Governor race reminded me of the 04 election - I voted for the most capable scumbag. :(

Re:Get Informed

[parasonic]

I realize that the seemingly correct thing to do is to stay at home. But all that does is ensure the tyranny of those with an agenda. This stuff isn't rocket science. There are not that many candidates to choose from, and you're chosing the lesser of two evils anyway.

I'm certainly not choosing the lesser of two evils. In the grand scheme of things, I vote for who I think should be elected. Generally, that's a third-party/independent candidate. It's only when there are two equal evils with no choice of a third that I don't vote--the best way to express my opinion is by showing NO support for either of them. If either were elected, I would be equally dissatisfied.

So, you know that your vote has no effect in the grand total of millions. Why not vote your conscious? You'll know that you did the right thing.

Re:Get Informed

[OakDragon]

Voting is only the beginning. Your real power is in getting involved to whatever degree you can, and write letters! Your elected representatives - whether they are the ones you picked or not - are highly sensitive to letters. Email is just about worthless, phone calls are so-so, printed letters (i.e., nicely typeset, etc.) are good, but the hand-written letter is the gold standard for getting your opinion before their eyes.

So work on your hand writing.

Re:Get Informed

[TrekkieGod]

choosing the lesser of two evils

But should I? If I really don't support any of the candidates, should I vote?

I agree completely. I ran into this issue for this election, and ended up not voting for anyone (although I did go to vote for the constitutional amendments referendum)

I don't get this "lesser of two evils" thing. I don't want to choose the lesser of two evils. If someone ties you down to a chair and asks me if I prefer to be beaten with the steel or metal bat, I answer that I prefer to be let go without harm. If those are the only two choices presented, I'll refuse to choose. Otherwise, you'll give the man a justification for the beating. He'll say, "well, he said he wanted to beaten with the wooden bat" in very much the same way politicians say, "the people voted for me. They approve of my actions." And they're right. So stop approving of their actions if you don't like them.

The question is what to do when you don't like any of the choices. Unfortunately, this takes a little bit more work than researching candidates for an election, and you need to get actively involved in politics. I haven't taken that step myself, but those who feel they're not doing enough if they don't vote should consider it as an alternative to voting for someone they don't like just because they think he'll hurt them less than the other guy.

Re:Get Informed

[IgnacioB]

Absolutely. You won't go from uninformed to fully informed in one election cycle, but grab that ballot and vote on any tiny piece you do have an opinion on. If you trust others advice to discuss pros and cons of candidates or issues you might add a couple. But if you really don't know on something, leave that part blank. Amazing thing is that the time of the next election you'll very likely have paid more attention. Being comfortable takes a little practice, but the learning curve is steep. Who know, you might find yourself running for office one day.

Re:Get Informed

[businessnerd]

In the time it took you to submit an AskSlashdot and then read all of the responses, you could have found out who is on the ballots and looked up where they stand on issues. In fact, all of the candidates have a campaign website stating their positions. Why are you wasting your time asking whether you should vote ignorant or not vote at all, when you could be solving your problem of ignorance.

STOP READING SLASHDOT AND START READING ABOUT THE CANDIDATES. YOU STILL HAVE 3 HOURS ON THE EAST COAST, MORE IF YOU'RE WEST OF THAT.

Re:Get Informed

[Lumpy]

it takes 60 minutes to get informed... 1 fricking hour.

if someone is so lazy they will not take 1 hour to get informed about what the candidates say they are for (hint: they all are lying) and the issues on the ballot then they should not vote.

IT blows my mind how incredibly lazy some people are.. they will waste an hour of their life watching a favorite TV show, but do not bother to learn about things that will directly affect their lives.

Re:Get Informed

[Anonymous Coward]

Period, end of story.

Oh really?

Let's have some fun with a little hypothetical situation. What if all the people who didn't vote (some 75% of the overall population I think) actually did take your advice -- they got informed, they got to the ballot, and they got their vote counted.

Yet... they ALL voted against your candidate or party, and took power by a landslide, enacting all the laws you personally don't believe in, and abolishing all the laws you personally do believe in. (This wouldn't include the laws of human nature, of course -- laws against actual aggression, i.e. theft, fraud, and physical force. Every sane person believes in those laws, of course.)

As a result, you are now living in your worst nightmare, and the outlook for change looks slim to none, considering that at least 75% of the population is now against you.

Now, here's my question to you: would you accept this result and surrender with nary a "well, it's only fair" or (god forbid) would you start to question the system itself?

My point is this. When people say "get out and vote", "rock the vote", or "get involved", what they are really saying is "get out and vote for my side". No sane person wants a majority to vote for the other side! He wants the majority to vote on his side, of course! That's exactly why he wants them to get out and vote: to support his side. My hypothetical situation is unlikely, but illustrates the point. Self-interest drives all of politics, and indeed, all of government.

No, I'm not trying to push your buttons or single you out. You are only repeating what has been chanted for years. I just want you to realize and admit that when you say "get out and vote", what you really mean is "get out and vote on my side". (Or at the least, get out and vote mostly on my side, putting me in the majority.)

It's nothing to be ashamed of -- everyone who ever said "get out and vote" means the same thing. Can you admit it?

Re:Get Informed

[Anonymous Coward]

Get Informed.
Get to the Ballot.
Get your vote counted.

The "real" information about our candidates and their agendas is unavailable except in hindsight, while our media bombards us with distractions (like the same-sex marriage issue) to the exclusion of the issues that concern me such as the vanishing middle class, the bankrupting of our country and the onset of fascism.

And this ballot you speak of has no one on it that I consider fit for office or who represents my world-view, so in the absence of true representation any one else's choice will do. Feel free to vote, though, for any of the "pre-approved" candidates.

And don't even start with me about how my vote will be counted.

Cast your ballot for change. Write in P. Ditty.

Re:Get Informed

[Anonymous Coward]

You weren't given issues because issue don't win elections. Turnout is all "they" care about, and negative adds about "the other guy" being a [something-with-negative-connotation] are much better motivators.

Re:Get Informed

[rhakka]

That's a pretty broad brush you're stroking with right there.

I, for one, am not so absolutely sure of my stances that I think everyone should agree with me. In fact, I'm pretty sure if everything were the way I thought it should be, it would be a horrendous disaster. Because I'm human, and I'm fallible.

Therefor, I very much welcome opposing points of views.

Getting the most people actively engaged in our governance is in all of our best interests (unless you are a megalomaniac). Because a whole lot of people not voting are "independants" who are not toeing party lines and instead have some real thoughts on real issues.. some right, some wrong, but certainly enough to have impacts beyond the bullshit "blue state red state" dichotomy we're getting stuck with in the meantime.

Get educated a little, go vote, go ahead and disagree with me. That's fine. At least then when really big problems come up, you guys are used to going out and voting, and talking to representatives, and PARTICIPATING IN POWER so when we DO agree, some stuff can really happen!

Opting out just leaves the power in the hands of the few.. something that was decided a long time ago to be a bad idea, and something that is definitely still not a good idea today.

Re:Get Informed

[nigelo]

Well, I've had multiple phone calls in the last week or so from my Secretary of State (so forget their blasted website), the Governor, previous Governors, Clint Eastwood, etc, etc, so now I'm *really* informed.

That's settled it - I'm not voting for Clint.

Re:Get Informed

[jmorris42]

> Get Informed.

Normally I tend to agree with ya Batman, but not on this one. If someone is asking the question TODAY I'd say it is a little late to get informed. They should sit this one out and plan to finish growing up by the next election and then take their place in the company of adults.

A little harsh? No, Freedom isn't Free people. It requires sacrifice in exchange for Citizenship. Millions of people will live or die, billion of dollars will change hands and the very existance of the Republic itself just might depend on what we adults do in our voting booths today. Is it really too much to ask for those wanting to exercise the franchise be expected to spend a couple of hours over the next two years learning a little about how a Republic is supposed to function, the current issues Congress is likely to be dealing with and figure out where you stand and the probable positions of the candidates you must pick from?

Here is my thumb rules for who should NOT vote. Personally I'd like to see voters face a Civics pop quiz in the voting booth but know that isn't likely.... no Democrat could ever be elected and most R's would be toast. :)

1. If the only thing you know about the candidates came from TV ads, don't vote.

2. If the only thing you know about the election/politics in general came from the nightly news, don't vote.

3. If your primary source for information is the Daily Show, don't vote. It's comedy people, yes it is also leftist twaddle, but the point is it ain't a real discussion of issues; it's primary purpose is to make you laugh not inform you. It is the inability to tell the difference that makes you a menace to the Republic in a voting booth.

4. Explain, in a one paragraph summary the difference between the two major political parties without simply declaring one evil and one good. What are the ideas they represent, why are they so opposed to each other. If you can't do this you have no business in a voting booth. Bonus points though if you can also explain the Libertarian position and why they differ from the other two. After all they ARE in all fifty states now.

5. Describe the difference between Democracy and a Republic. Which form of government is the US supposed to be?

6. Can you name your current elected officials? Congresscritter, both Senators, President and Vice President, Governor, State Rep and Senator? Less than a 50% score and you probably need to wait this one out and study.

7. Can you name a recent (last year) vote of one of your elected reps you strongly agreed with? Disagreed with? If no, you probably haven't been paying attention and might want to sit this one out.

Re:Get Informed

[nschubach]

I can't tell you how many times my Grandmother has gotten things done simply by doing this.

One example of this was when she wrote about how the state patched the roads poorly. Around here, they only do a strip along the shoulder to try to level the road. They skip spots now and then and when it's done poorly it tends to wear on the right suspension more than your left. She drives this road on a regular basis (to and from town) and rarely travels any other roads. She wrote a letter, included a copy of the repair bill for her car and kindly asked for the road to be fixed. She explicitly stated she didn't want them to pay for her car, but included the bill so they could see how much it cost her. Less than one month later, they repaved the entire road from the corner past her house all the way into town. It desperately needed repaired, so it wasn't really a "waste" of tax dollars (except for the fact that some idiot got paid to do a poor job in the first place.)

Re:Get Informed

[parasonic]

Spelling correction:

conscious --> conscience

Re:Get Informed

[harks]

Good points. The bottom line is, if you're not informed, it doesn't take long to get informed. Look up the candidates' websites, compare platforms, go vote. It shouldn't take more than an hour, tops.

Re:Get Informed

[Anonymous Coward]

"if someone is so lazy they will not take 1 hour to get informed about what the candidates say they are for (hint: they all are lying) and the issues on the ballot then they should not vote."

If they are all lying why tell anyone to get informed?
I don't think it takes "only an hour". Obviously the majority of candidates cater to what they think the majority of people want to hear to get into office. If you really want to be informed, it takes awhile of tracking political stories and finding out what each candidate has said on particular occasions, about varying topics, from several different news sources. And yet, you still won't have a good idea of how they're going to act when they're in office. Getting informed is easy to say, but not easy to do.

Re:Get Informed

[arth1]

I realize that the seemingly correct thing to do is to stay at home. But all that does is ensure the tyranny of those with an agenda. This stuff isn't rocket science. There are not that many candidates to choose from, and you're chosing the lesser of two evils anyway.

Get Informed.
Get to the Ballot.
Get your vote counted.

Period, end of story.

The traditional way of dealing with a tyranny is to grab your pitchforks and storm the bastille. It's a whole lot more effective than getting your vote counted for someone you loathe and who exploits you in return for your vote.

Regards,
--
*Art

Re:Get Informed

[podwich]

That's pretty much it. If you're going to go through the trouble of deciding whether you're informed enough to vote, you might as well spend that energy actually getting informed.

Re:Get Informed

[pete-classic]

Good for you! I think Penn Jillette makes this point very well in "Sock".

-Peter

Re:Get Informed

[Ash Vince]

For many years I have never voted in elections on a national level. The entire system is designed so that the only candidates who get to run are the ones the politcal elite approve of. The political elite is swayed by the money put in their pockets by big business.

After watching the last few elections I think that the result was decided before the election, otherwise Kerry would have adopted a standpoint on Iraq more akin to that of the american people. If he had said what a bad thing war was and that he would never have got invaded but once there we had to stay he probably would have been elected.

What I have been doing instead of voting is turning up and spoiling a ballot paper, usually by writing something asking for a better choice of candidates.

Re:Get Informed

[bjprice]

If you don't like either candidate, simply vote out the incumbent.

If nobody can hold onto the seat for more than one term, perhaps they'll eventually realise they need to change their approach...

Re:Get Informed

[Anonymous Coward]

If you don't like either of the two primary choices, you can make a vote with no choices selected.
It will be counted, and will be in the statistics.
This type of vote, as well as if more votes went to 3rd-parties could become noticed if there were more of them.

Re:Get Informed

[Anonymous Coward]

Just a small comment...

Rather than spoiling your ballot, Canadian law allows you to refuse your ballot. Simply vote in the contests you want (or none) and return any unused ballots to the poll worker and inform them you are refusing the ballot. They won't (or at least, shouldn't) ask for details, and it will be recorded as such.

It's better than spoiling the ballot, since it is a sign of active protest as opposed to being lumped in with the people who couldn't figure out how to operate a ballot.

Re:Get Informed

[The Interfacer]

Why choose the lesser of two evils? We should have another choice on all ballots. The last option to appear should simply say, NONE OF THE ABOVE! That way you don't have to be 'informed' (which I read as brainwashed). This way you can go to the poles, vote NONE OF THE ABOVE and tell everyone that you did your civic duty. It's nobody's business who you voted for, so long as you voted. If enough people voted NONE OF THE ABOVE, then none of the lesser evils would be elected and we can try again with different candidates. It would take longer, but we would get lesser evils each time, wouldn't we?

Re:Get Informed

[TheRaven64]

If I really don't support any of the candidates, should I vote?

Yes. Vote for a third candidate; one who doesn't stand a hope in hell of getting in. Even if you disagree with this person, your vote will have the effect of diluting the moral authority of whoever does get in. Would you rather have a candidate you disagree with win with 60% of the vote, or with 40%?

Re:Get Informed

[chrispalasz]

That line of thinking just doesn't work in a Democracy. The reason you vote for the lesser of two evils is because candidates that are representing tens or hundreds of thousands of people are going to have to have some policies that you don't like. So, pick what policies are important to you and vote accordingly. It's nothing like being tied to a chair and it's not saying you approve their policies. Your analogy is a personal one rather than having to do with the masses or the future of an entire people. Sounds kind of selfish to me. A working Democracy needs participation in order to function. Vote. If you choose a candidate and don't like some of their policies? Write a letter or send an e-mail! It's not rocket science, it has influence, and you will be heard.

Re:Get Informed

[gt_mattex]

Go Here: http://www.vote-smart.org/

Get informed.

This is too easy not to do.

Problem solved.

Re:Get Informed

[Anonymous Coward]

I, for one, am not so absolutely sure of my stances that I think everyone should agree with me

Then how can you feel ethically correct about voting? That's a pretty large weapon you're playing with -- I wouldn't want to put it in the wrong hands.

You're not talking about wielding the pen here; you're talking about wielding the sword. That is what power is: the "right" to employ coercion against others. Government is the organization holding that unique "right" within a given territory. (That is the ONLY objective, unambiguous definition of government that holds true for all governments, past, present, and future.)

Politics, including the act of voting, is simply the process of determining who gets to hold power over who. If that inequality of power didn't exist (if we were all equal in power), government couldn't exist.

I very much welcome opposing points of views.

I'm not talking about points of views. I'm talking about pure force, and you being subject to it. Now please, if you want to play, answer my hypothetical question. Would you merely shrug your shoulders as they convert you into a slave to the collective? Or can you admit that when you say "get out and vote", you really mean "get out and vote for my side"?

Re:Get Informed

[Anonymous Coward]

Your cemetary in Arlington Virginia is full of reasons why you should pay attention to politics and get out and vote. By even asking this question you are taking for granted everything your country has ever fought for. Make a list of those countries who do not choose their government through open elections. Would you want to live in any one of those countries? As for the futility of the two party system; if you don't like it then get involved and make a difference. Better to take part in a democratic two party system than hope for the perfect system to come along. Oh, and by the way, when you do find that system please let the rest of us know.

Re:Get Informed

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't get this "lesser of two evils" thing....Otherwise, you'll give the man a justification for the beating.

What if the situation is such that if you don't choose a man with a bat, a man with a 15 pound sledge hammer will beat you? That bat beating sounds a lot less awful than the sledge hammer beating.

In today's election, I wrote my own name in for two of the offices where I didn't like the choices presented.

Re:Get Informed

[detect]

As an Australian (where voting is compulsory) I find it hard to comprehend this type of attitude.

The whole point of living in a democracy is to get involved in politics and at the very least cast a vote. Do you think your forefathers went to war against anti-democratic regimes just so you could sit on your ass and be uninformed?

It is your duty to vote.

How informed do you need to be anyway? Who do you want to control the Senate and the House of Reps?

Re:Get Informed

[TrekkieGod]

The reason you vote for the lesser of two evils is because candidates that are representing tens or hundreds of thousands of people are going to have to have some policies that you don't like. So, pick what policies are important to you and vote accordingly.

I don't disagree. When I say I don't like any of the choices, it means that, on the issues that are important to me, they either hold the same view, or both hold views I disagree with. On the other issues, I don't care one way or another.

I'm not advocating being unreasonable and expecting your candidate to agree with you on every single issue. However, sometimes none of them agree with you on the few issues you do find very important. When that is the case, I don't advocate choosing the one that is slightly less bad than the other.

A working Democracy needs participation in order to function.

I don't disagree with that either. I said in my original post that if you don't like either candidate, but you want to do your part, you need to get involved in politics. That includes lobbying, and if that doesn't work, you could always run for office yourself.

However, if you're too lazy to do anything about it, don't just choose one of the candidates you don't like. That's actively voicing your approval of them.

Re:Get Informed

[Anonymous Coward]

Explain, in a one paragraph summary the difference between the two major political parties without simply declaring one evil and one good.

1. The US government of today dwarfs the US government of only 100 years ago, both in revenue and power over the people. (In fact, the US government is now the most powerful government AND world empire that has ever existed.)

2. During that period, political power was dominated by the republicans and the democrats. No one party dominated the other; they both shared in the power over this period.

3. Therefore, it stands to reason that both the republicans and democrats are in favor of bigger and bigger government. We don't know just how big, yet, because government is still growing in power and revenue. It can be said with 100% certainly that both parties are in favor of political power for themselves and (consequently) less freedom for the individual.

4. Now why would I care to know the dime's worth of difference?

Re:Get Informed

[Bing Tsher E]

If nobody can hold onto the seat for more than one term, perhaps they'll eventually realise they need to change their approach...

No, at that point the bueraucracy and lobbyists that grow and fester around the elected government will gain the upper hand.

There needs to be some sort of mechanism where: "If only 1/3 of the populace votes, the power of the government is reduced by 2/3."

Shut 'em down. It's really that simple.

Re:Get Informed

[wass]

Who modded this insightful? Where is this "two-choice" nonsense coming from, you have more than two choices, vote Green or Libertarian if you want a chance to make your voice heard.

I agree with others upthread, though, that really if you think the current government is akin to getting hit with a bat, Vote Democratic this time to get the thugs out of office, and Green/Libertarian/whatever in future elections. Get the thugs out NOW so that Bush's insane policies can be stopped immediately, then we'll get around to getting more greens into office later(or your other 3rd party of choice), or fixing up the Democratic party, etc. But in any case, vote 3rd party instead of not voting, that's just idiotic to avoid the ballot box purposefully because you don't like Democrats.

Bush is around for 2 more years, and if you want to keep letting these guys go on trampling over your rights then please sit out but also don't whine about the bad government later. But if you get your ass to the ballot box you are making one small part of a difference. But there is ALOT at stake now, and if you don't vote you really don't have much right to complain since this is your biyearly chance to make a difference by voting in somebody else.

Bush and his gang have been destroying our civil rights, shitting on the Constitution, and pissing off the world and the country in the process. So

• if you wind up getting drafted to fight in Iraq or North Korea, don't complain about it if you don't vote today.
• If the government decides it can monitor all your emails and web browses for signs of naughtiness, don't complain about it if you don't vote today.
  
• If the government decides you're not towing the party line and locks you away under terrorist behavior suspicions, don't complain about it if you don't vote today.
  

Those reasons right there better knock some sense into you right now as to why you better get your lazy ass to the ballot box, even if you're voting for a 3rd party. Every vote that the Republicans don't get is another vote to diminish their so-called "political capital". And if you really want to stop the madness now, vote Democratic for this election and then we'll work on improving Democrats/third parties in the future.

Re:Get Informed

[TrekkieGod]

The whole point of living in a democracy is to get involved in politics and at the very least cast a vote.

No. The whole point of living in a democracy if having the right to get involved in politics. It's also having the right not to do anything if you don't want to.

That aside, everyone responding to me seems to have ignored the paragraph where I advocated getting involved in politics in order to change the available choices in the case where you don't like any of the choices presented to you.

Do you think your forefathers went to war against anti-democratic regimes just so you could sit on your ass and be uninformed?

My forefathers came up with the concept of the electoral college because they thought that the majority of the population was incapable of making an informed decision on who the President would be. The electoral college didn't always work as it does today. Heck, before the 17th amendment people didn't directly vote for Senators either.

How informed do you need to be anyway?

You don't need to be an expert. You just need to take the time to find out what each candidate stands for. A lot of people are just traditionally republican or democrat, and they'll just vote for whoever is representing that party, without having any idea what the guy actually plans to do. That's especially true for the more local elections, for people who didn't get ads on tv.

Re:Get Informed

[John Hasler]

> The question is what to do when you don't like any of the choices.

Write-in.

All elections should be write-in only. If you can't name at least one candidate why should you be voting at all?

Re:Get Informed

[This Is Ridiculous]

I have a TiVo so I skip commercials

Better not let any politicians find out that a TiVo can be used to skip their campaign ads. They'd be outlawed faster than you can say "negative ad".

Re:Get Informed

[wass]

If someone ties you down to a chair and asks me if I prefer to be beaten with the steel or metal bat, I answer that I prefer to be let go without harm.

In your silly analogy, not voting at all is akin to silently sitting in the chair and taking the abuse willingly, instead of trying to stop it. Not voting implies you don't give a shit that you're getting hit by a bat.

Yeah, this is my 2nd response to your comment, but I think it more aptly sums up the situation.

Re:Get Informed

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly right. It is not only a right but a duty. Marilyn vos Savant was once asked what the most destructive thing in the world was. She replied it was an uninformed vote. Staying at home is a tacit vote for things you may regret later. Vote wisely. Vote logically, and remove confusing emationality from the issue.

Re:Get Informed

[TrekkieGod]

In your silly analogy, not voting at all is akin to silently sitting in the chair and taking the abuse willingly, instead of trying to stop it.

Why is everyone ignoring the paragraph I wrote about what you should actually do if you don't like any of the choices? I said you should consider getting involved in politics. In my "silly" analogy, that's akin to not choosing to get hit with either bat, and instead trying to get away, as AKABatman pointed out in one of the responses above. You can always lobby or run for office yourself, but don't choose a guy you don't like just because he's not as bad as the other guy.

I've made this same response a bunch of times already, but I figured that since you responded twice, that means you're interested in hearing what I have to say.

Re:Get Informed

[Americano]

What I have been doing instead of voting is turning up and spoiling a ballot paper, usually by writing something asking for a better choice of candidates.

And I'm sure that the machines that scan the ballots feel sympathy for you, and are going to get right on that as soon as they, you know, become sentient.

Re:Get Informed

[wass]

Hi, in my first response I wasn't responding to you per se but to people that might opt to stay home since they don't like the two major parties, and don't want to "throw their vote away" with a 3rd party candidate. Or even those (like my girlfriend's officemate) that apparently never even considered voting for a 3rd party.

And just to beat this analgy to death, running away from the chair would be like moving to another country. If you want the person hitting you to be nice, you better vote. Staying silent and not voting is not an option if you don't like how they're treating you.

Re:Get Informed

[Anonymous Coward]

The mistake in the "lesser of two evils" excuse for not voting is that if people don't vote, we'll always be choosing between two evils. Voter participation is the requirement for change. If you're not willing to vote, then your complaints don't carry much weight.

Re:Get Informed

[Americano]

Dude, easy rule of thumb: Post before hitting the pipe.

If enough people voted NONE OF THE ABOVE, then none of the lesser evils would be elected and we can try again with different candidates.

And in what possible reality would George Bush not vote for George Bush, and John Kerry not vote for John Kerry? In your proposed scenario, each race ends, decided not by the people being represented, but by which candidate has a bigger family, while everybody else sits on their hands and says, "Well I don't like either guy" and hopes for a run-off. Would you really want to see a *national* election, affecting the lives & fates of 300 million Americans & billions of other people around the world, decided 2 votes to 1?

Re:Get Informed

[Temposs]

http://www.vote-smart.org/ That's about all you need.

Re:Get Informed

[detect]

No. The whole point of living in a democracy if having the right to get involved in politics. It's also having the right not to do anything if you don't want to.

Well that's where we disagree. A democracy by definition is "rule by the people" where all citizens have an equal say in shaping policy. By not voting you have no say.

My forefathers came up with the concept of the electoral college because they thought that the majority of the population was incapable of making an informed decision on who the President would be. The electoral college didn't always work as it does today. Heck, before the 17th amendment people didn't directly vote for Senators either.

Your forefathers _adopted_ the concept (quite an old one actually) of an electoral college which basically guarantees that by living in a smaller state your vote is worth more than someone living in a larger state. Again it can be argued that all citizens are not having an equal say.

Re:Get Informed

[Minwee]

"Get your vote counted."

Well, that's the tricky part isn't it? When you're faced with evidence that votes are not being counted and entire elections have been stolen, turning up to vote can seem like an endoresement of the system.

"Hey, I'm voting because I have absolute faith in how this election is run and everything is A-OK!"

I think I would have to be a lot more informed with how your country's ballots are being handled before I could trust that my vote would be counted.

Re:Get Informed

[Anonymous Coward]

But the point is, the OP didn't do step 1. Therefore, s/he should not proceed to step 2. Voting without having the slighest idea what you are voting for or against just adds noise to the system. Even if you know enough to know you want a straight party slate, that's fine. But if you know absolutely nothing about any of the races, you should not vote.

That being said, I don't know about other states, but in California, you'd have to work pretty hard to not know anything. The Secretary of State mails out a sample ballot and a high-thud-factor voter information book which gives one-page arguments for and against our slew of propositions. No one has an excuse for not picking a proposition, reading the (generally lame, shrill and misleading) arguments for and against, and making a decision.

I voted today, but there were a bunch of lesser-publicized contests (for judges) for which I did not have an opinion. Feeling like a total slacker, I did not vote in those races, even though they could have more impact on my life than any other race.

Re:Get Informed

[d0ktorbuzz0]

Why don't I vote anymore? I don't have much real choice when I look at what's being offered. Propositions that are either "Yes" or "No" are an exception to this statement. Reelection of judges (again, sort of a "Yes" or "No" option) are not quite as comprehensive - it isn't clear what a preponderance of "No" votes entails.

As for voting that gives me a choice of "Candidate A" versus "Candidate B," the "choice" I'm offered is, in a realpolitik sense, no choice at all. Until I have the option of a "Neither" vote that has real consequences (for example, the office remains vacant and neither candidate is permitted to run again until the office is filled by a "Not-A and Not-B" person) then all such selections are meaningless. They provide no incentive for any party to get its act together and actually respond to the wishes of the people, because we in the U.S. don't have a Constitutional fall-through to deal with the very realistic cases of unacceptably low voter turnout or its vocal equivalent, the extreme no-confidence vote. I don't think the current state of the election process is what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they set about establishing the Republic. And I reject the assertion that this mess is what the soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen of the past and present fought and died for. Instead it is the living that have so spitefully and wantonly degraded our political process to the place it find itself today. Fans of Heinlein's book Starship Troopers, can I get an Amen?

So, you can say period, end of story all you want. Until I am offered a full frame of discernment (those of you who have studied Dempster-Shafer Theory, or evidential reasoning, will know what I'm talking about) on my ballot, I won't come back. Let the stupid and the smart fight it out with hot dogs and doughnuts, because that's all that's available under the current system. I'll still get fed the same junk anyway and I can ignore the entire process, saving myself from no end of aggravation and disgust along the way. At least I don't have to feel like I actually affirmed the grand vision of some corrupt greedy dingbat degenerate when all I really wanted was to prevent an even more corrupt greedy dingbat degenerate from holding the same office.

In summary: a choice for the evil of two (or more) lessers (I jumbled your statement intentionally, I like my version better) is no choice at all. I shall abstain ad infinitum until I can effect change by voting "No Confidence" across the board. Go ahead, mod me bitter...

Re:Get Informed

[TrekkieGod]

Well that's where we disagree. A democracy by definition is "rule by the people" where all citizens have an equal say in shaping policy. By not voting you have no say.

We do indeed disagree. In my view, having a say in shaping policy means that if I care, my voice will be heard. I don't think the government suddenly becomes less democratic if I choose not to say anything. After all, I think most people in the US don't believe voting should be compulsory, so the people shaped that policy, right?

Your forefathers _adopted_ the concept (quite an old one actually) of an electoral college which basically guarantees that by living in a smaller state your vote is worth more than someone living in a larger state. Again it can be argued that all citizens are not having an equal say.

By "came up with" I meant "decided on", but whatever. I specifically mentioned that the electoral college didn't always work as it does today because previously there were no general elections. So it wasn't that your vote counted differently depending on which state you are in, it was that you didn't vote at all. People voted for their local state governments and for their federal representatives (House). Senators were voted on by the state government, and the President by the Electors. Both without a vote by the general public.

Re:Get Informed

[CAIMLAS]

No shit. It takes, what, half an hour to get informed? There is a wealth of information easily accessible to a technically inclined person these days - online. Inside of half an hour, you can read an opinion for and against each measure and amendment, review the voting record and stance of each politician, and sitll have time to take a piss.

Maybe more like an hour, but still. I bet most of the people who 'arent informed' still had time to watch a rerun of their favorite TV show some time in the last week.

Re:Get Informed

[tm2b]

Horseshit.

The League of Woman Voters publishes a very well respected election guide, known for its even-handedness.

Sure, it won't get every last nuance and will ignore the scandals - but the original question was concerned with a candidate's positions, not who they slept with.

Re:Get Informed

[ceoyoyo]

I think if you're too lazy to inform yourself (it doesn't take THAT much effort) then you should stay home. But then you don't deserve to live in a democracy.

Re:Get Informed

[ceoyoyo]

If everybody thought that, we'd have a much better world.

I count people who vote for their party no matter what among those who are uniformed voters. They're MORE dangerous than people who just pick at random.

Re:Get Informed

[stanmann]

The traditional way of dealing with a tyranny is to grab your pitchforks and storm the bastille. It's a whole lot more effective than getting your vote counted for someone you loathe and who exploits you in return for your vote.

and the traditional way to identify a tyranny is that people are afraid to make comments like yours.

Re:Get Informed

[snickkers]

In australia our voting (the election that lead to a prime minister being appointed, that is) is compulsory - every australian citizen must do it. Which leads to this wonderful think called the Donkey Vote. See, it's compulsory to go stand in a voting booth, fill out a form, and but it in the ballot box. but since it's a secret vote, you can just fill the form out deliberately invalidly and nobody would know. This, in itself is a protest, that out of all the candidates your first choice is None. And the protest gets heard, to some degree, because the number of invalid/donkey votes get counted too. Unfortunately in the US, you don't get that option. Well, I suppose you could go into your voting-place and cast an invalid vote, but the main way people would protest i assume would be to just stay at home. Meaning, your protest just gets counted as one of the many americans who are too lazy to vote. I prefer to think of it, in Australia, that it's compulsory to "make the effort" to vote, but not necessarily compulsory to cast a valid vote.

Re:Get Informed

[1u3hr]

I don't get this "lesser of two evils" thing. I don't want to choose the lesser of two evils.

In life you have to choose the lesser of two evils all the time.

If it all seems pointless, remember that elections are periodic. If all those who feel disgusted by the choices opt out, those who are happy with choosing "evil" will do so. And they may well choose the greater evil. And to appeal to them, since you won't be voting, the next time around, it's all shifted to be more evil. (Substitute "right" or "left" for "evil" if that makes it more real.) And thus you also encourage negative campaigning, if you can't make voters choose you, you can make them not like your opponent, the "lesser evil", who they would vote for if forced to make a choice, but instead decide to stay home.

I'm Australian, and we have a law to make voting compulsory. If you fail to vote, you are fined -- a small amount, $10 or so last I recall, so if you philosophically object to voting and don't just want to cast a blank ballot you can do so at small cost. But well over 90% do vote; it makes for a healthier system and is a much better guarantee of democracy than otherwise, in my opinion.

Re:Get Informed

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the beauty of democracy: if you don't like the choice, make your own bat!
Mmmmmm, velour....

Re:Get Informed

[rhakka]

There are lines I would not cross, of course, and that would cause me to be a revolutionary if force tried to make me cross them. I believe most people have these lines.

However, the power of democracy is that in many respects we can avoid crossing those final lines WITHOUT having to resort to violence.

So there are limits, for sure. But for the most part, I am comfortable doing my best to be heard, to have my input, and to allow my fellow people to have their own say. I feel "ethically correct" about it because NO system is perfect, and no person is perfect, and to live in fear of your own imperfection would be pretty stupid. I do my best to be informed and to see things from as many angles as I can. That is all I can do.

Re:Get Informed

[TrekkieGod]

Unfortunately in the US, you don't get that option.

Actually, you do. As I mentioned in my post, I did go to vote, but didn't choose any of the candidates. Instead, I just voted on the state constitutional amendments for South Carolina.

The thing is I'm not convinced that, in the US at least, that's a more effective means of protest than staying at home. I went because I wanted to see one of those amendments in particular defeated (even though I knew it wouldn't be), but I don't see anybody displaying the number of blank votes on the news. However, people always talk about voter turnout.

Re:Get Informed

[Anonymous Coward]

Then vote for an Independent or write in "None of the Above" and vote that...

Re:Get Informed

[Johnny5000]

All elections should be write-in only. If you can't name at least one candidate why should you be voting at all?

And wow- John Smith beats Mieczyslaw Krzyzewski by a landslide!

3rd Party

[WickedLogic]

If you don't care, and are not going to vote. Vote for more variety, if nothing else...

Re:3rd Party

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed, vote 3rd party. Our 2 party system has been fighting so long along its party lines that is forgotten about it's people. We need a strong 3rd party to stabilize our out of control parties and bring the people back to government. Instead of thinking, "well, it's gonna be one or the other and they're both bad, I might as well say fork it...", get out and give any third party support. It will also cut down on single party control in the government. We need 3 parties like we need our 3 branches of government, it's checks and balances.

Re:3rd Party

[is as us Infinite]

I agree with this. I'm not sure if it's the same in the States, but up here in Canada each vote a party gets means another $2 or something goes into that party's coffers. Voting for a third party sends a message to the two in power that they need to do something different. As well, it spurs on greater political debate, which seems (?) like a good thing.

Anyway, perhaps the money given to a party as a result of a person's vote is far less than campaign contributions anyways, so it might be wholly unimportant. But still... I'll bet if one decides to go and vote for a third party, you'll go and do some cursory investigation about the political leanings of each possible third party, and that can only be a good thing.

Of course, you could just assume that the sibling poster knows what they're talking about and vote Libertarian, but that seems a cheap way to attempt to sway the vote... (; Go and google the parties and read their platforms a little. It doesn't take long to get an impression of which party wants what.

Agree

[Zashi]

I completely agree. An uniformed vote is far worse than no vote at all. The masses are easily swayed. Do you really want the people governing your nation to be picked via their ability to spread the most propaganda? Granted, that is more or less how things work now, but uninformed votes only worsen the situation.

Re:Agree

[Ender_Stonebender]

AKAImBatman - who posted above - is right. The correct thing to do, in this situation, is to get informed. Even if you don't have time to get in informed on all the candidates/issues, get informed on one or two of them. Then go vote. There's no law saying that you have to vote in every race (or on every issue).

Re:Agree

[Squapper]

Isn't blank votes an option in the US? Best way to say "i disagree with both sides, but i still want to serve democracy"

Re:Agree

[nospam007]

Isn't blank votes an option in the US? Best way to say "i disagree with both sides, but i still want to serve democracy"
--
I see that in your country polls are also always in walking distance and on an nationwide free day,ditto here, but not everywhere.

Re:Agree

[Frol]

What if the candidates were:
- Republican
- Democrat
- Nazi

Many would realise that either R or D is far better than N. Should they still not vote because they don't know wich of R or D they should vote for?

I belive you should vote to make sure extremist opinions supported by a small percentage of the population get an unproportional part of the votes.
Even if you are not certain of which candidate is better, you may realise that some are far better than others.

(This may not apply very well to the american national elections with two more or less even sized parties. But for instance in swedish municipal
elections, a non voter allows extremist parties to take more seats.)

Re:Agree

[Carewolf]

Yes, but a person smart enough to realise he is too uninformed. Is better informed and smarter than 90% of the moron who DO actually vote.

I would much rather have a country run by people who know they are uninformed than people who think they know everything.

Staying home because you dont know all the fact is the way to let the religious fanatics and all the other nutcases win.

Re:Agree

[budgenator]

Yeah, in Chicago even dead people vote, now that's dedication to serving democracy!

Re:Agree

[OakDragon]

Yeah, in Chicago even dead people vote, now that's dedication to serving democracy!

They form a constituency that's easy to please. All they want is the peace and quiet of the grave, and the occasional brain for a snack.

Re:Agree

[TheRaven64]

In this case, I would probably vote Nazi, on the basis that they wouldn't (I sincerely hope) stand a chance of winning, but it would help undermine the authority of whoever did win if they only got three or four times as many votes as the Nazis.

So dont vote

[Tweekster]

If you feel you dont know how to vote, skip it. At least you are being honest, unlike the people that read a few bullet points, then vote based off of that.

People that blindly vote, that is far worse than not voting because it takes away accountability. The politician now knows those people will blindly vote for them, in contrast, the people that dont vote, dont count, but the people that do vote, are more likely to care that the person didnt live up to their expectations and vote his butt out next time around. The uninformed voter will just pick the guy that is on his side of the fence in political leanings.

Re:So dont vote

[loolgeek]

Some countries allow to vote "blank", this means "I want to vote, I disagree with all your candidates/propositions". The "blank" votes are very important to measure, first the number of people willing to vote (blank + non-blank), and also it estimates the number of people who are not represented otherwise by the usual candidates/propositions. That's why I always say to people to vote "blank" if they think unsure or not informed enough. Maybe US should think about having "blank" vote available...

Re:So dont vote

[JazzLad]

I used my option to write-in to select none of the above more than once today.

jm2c, ymmv

Interesting...

[GrayCalx]

Definitely brings up an interesting topic of debate. But lets get to what people really want to talk about... who's getting voted out on the next Survivor?

No.

[pair-a-noyd]

How can one vote if one doesn't understand what one is voting for?
Suppose there was a vote held for to make it mandatory to grind all puppies and kittens into grease for face cream and everyone passed it out of ignorance?

Duh.

Re:No.

[2nd Post!]

Well, hopefully the voter will know how to read.

Then hopefully the voter understands what the vote is for.

Finally the voter should understand the impact of the vote passing vs the vote not passing and choose accordingly.

In that case the answer is, "Yes."

Re:No.

[Tony]

Fuck, I'd vote for that in a red-hot kitten-grinding minute.

Re:No.

[pyros]

How can one vote if one doesn't understand what one is voting for?

Ask Congress, they seem to have made a career out of it.

Re:No.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well congressmen don't often read bills before they vote on them, so this is just extending it to the general public.

Re:No.

[budgenator]

As long as no animals were used in testing the product, people probably would not care. Our state actually has a law that require the animal pounds to regularly tune up the engines used to generate the carbon monoxide to euthanize unwanted animals, but operate the engines with full choke !

Re:No.

[QuickFox]

(OT) The link in your sig is broken.

Moo

[Chacham]

Being none of us know you, nobody will express their opinions.

Get informed, or don't even ask.

[Anonymous Coward]

"I don't pay attention to politics at all, and so I will not be voting in today's elections. My family has been telling me that this is a mistake and I should vote anyway, partly because I have slightly conservative views which agrees with their political outlook."

By all means, do what your family tells you to. You should do what they tell you until you move out of the basement.

There's plenty of time left

[aarku]

Start reading, start googling, check out your local newspaper's website. You don't have to ponder for months. There are plenty of primary sources out there to make your decision with time to go out for ice cream all before the polls close. You don't... hate .... ice cream.... do you?

Statistically speaking...

[2nd Post!]

There is no such thing as an uninformed vote. You cannot be TOTALLY ignorant. You will know something.

In aggregate then hopefully that information will come out.

If you don't vote at all then you are literally giving other people control over your life. Voting is not ONLY about candidates. You can vote on issues/questions/propositions that increase or decrease taxes or affect your life entirely.

So to recap: If you were totally, completely, entirely ignorant than your vote will be canceled out by all the other voters who are totally ignorant. On the other hand if you have even a smattering of knowledge, that vote will not be cancelled out because it will "align" with other voters who also have a smattering of knowledge.

At the very worst your vote will cancel out someone else who makes a "bad" vote.

Re:Statistically speaking...

[thrillseeker]

You cannot be TOTALLY ignorant. You will know something.

You must be new here.

Re:Statistically speaking...

[RonnyJ]

The problem here is that of biased reporting/editorials. Sure, somebody might have an idea about things just from the media, but it may not be an unbiased source overall.

If a significant amount of people are affected in the same way, this can be a problem (after all, if it's a general media bias, it won't 'cancel out' on average).

Re:Statistically speaking...

[Fastolfe]

You will know something.

With no active research, what you "know" will be whatever people have forced on you. This means your view of the candidates and the issues will be based on TV spots, signs, telephone calls, mail, and the visitors that knock on your door. Every one of these sources is going to be heavily biased, will work to mislead you, and appeal to your emotions. Not one of them will give you any rational basis for a vote.

Votes based on this information won't be random, because the information available to you isn't going to be random. One side is going to have a more emotional ad, or a more memorable sign. Your vote isn't going to be random, and it isn't going to be helpful. Your vote is going to be for whichever side happens to be the loudest, or the most successful in their media campaign. Neither of these things has anything to do with the merits of the issues or the qualifications of the candidates. This is not how we need our elections to be decided.

Re:Statistically speaking...

[treeves]

"You cannot be TOTALLY ignorant. You will know something."

That's awfully nice of you. It doesn't explain reality, however. You admit there is such a thing as a "bad" vote, and do not set any limit on what fraction of votes is "bad". The *result* can be quite "bad". This conforms better with reality than saying all those "bad" votes magically somehow cancel each other out. What is the proposed mechanism for that? Anti-votes? Super-vote-symmetry?

Re:Statistically speaking...

[Quaoar]

I don't think anyone argues that someone can be 100% ignorant. But what if I take all my information from TV ads, and base my decision on that? I think the problem is that many people are misinformed, not under-informed...because the easiest source of information (the boob tube) is incredibly misleading.

And you can't say that informed votes will cancel each other out. Lets say one side of a proposition is much better funded than the other side. Then your typical under-informed voter who just bases his decision on what he sees on television is probably going to vote for the side with the most money.

Here's what I advise for the under-informed: Typically people ARE informed about at least ONE issue. And that's the beauty of voting: You don't have to vote on everything! If I have an informed opinion on the governor of my state, but nothing else, then I can just vote for the governor of my state. Don't know enough about a proposition or a candidate? Don't vote either way on that issue!

Re:Statistically speaking...

[Vellmont]

There is no such thing as an uninformed vote. You cannot be TOTALLY ignorant. You will know something.


Pure nonsense. You're trying to tell me I'm supposed to know something about the local school board election which had almost no media coverage, or the park board election, or the "soil and water conservation" election? They don't list incumbants, they don't have party affiliations, it's hard to even FIND information on these races even if you look. The only thing I know about these people is the name. Unless they decided to change their name to something insane like "Vlad the Impaler", it means nothing.

So I don't vote in those races because I know zip about them.

Oh, and if you think the name means something, a number of years ago there was a woman with no qualifications, now law education, etc running for a Judge position that had the same name as local celebrity. A lot of people voted for her because they thought it was the local celebrity. She almost won.

Re:Statistically speaking...

[arth1]

If you don't vote at all then you are literally giving other people control over your life.

Just like voting, then?

Regards,
--
*Art

Re:Statistically speaking...

[raddan]

They can at least vote on the voter referendums. I think it's safe to assume that our hypothetical ignoramuses are at least smart enough to figure out if they want to allow alcohol sales in grocery stores or not. If they aren't confident enough to fill in the rest, then they can leave those parts blank.

Re:Statistically speaking...

[COMON$]

Correct. Logically you can apply one of the following:

1. Current office or policy is doing a decent enough job for you not to take notice. Vote to keep things as they are.

2. Current office or policy is pissing you off. Vote for change.

3. You are Partisan. Trust your Party and vote their way.

4. You are non-partisan, Christmas tree the ballot and burn a flag.

Re:Statistically speaking...

[nachtkap]

There is no such thing as an uninformed vote. You cannot be TOTALLY ignorant

Sure u can all it takes is not to have a job and therefore no money to buy a TV set.

If you don't vote at all then you are literally giving other people control over your life.

IMHO that should should read: "...you are unable to make choices concerning the leadership and policies of your country that are within the boundaries of the law"

Im thinking Lt. Cornell Claus Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg here....

Re:Statistically speaking...

[Alsee]

I didn't know that.

-

Re:Statistically speaking...

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is he modded funny?? Should be Insightful.

Voting....

[nick13245]

If you don't know why the hell your voting, your like me, your choices are all equally terrible.

Re:Voting....

[Qzukk]

I knew why the hell I was voting, but my choices were all pretty darn terrible anyway.

This lesser of the evils thing needs to go. Time to organize a new party to replace the Republican party since they've gone off the deep end and the Libertarians have failed to organize to fill their conservative shoes.

Do what I do

[CowboyTodd]

Do what I do, always vote for the taller candidate.

stability.

[Knos]

An uninformed vote is helpful in as much as it might reduce the
variance in opinions induced by ephemereal informations.

Re:stability.

[Knos]

Also, the more people vote, the more work for politicians/representatives to actually cover the needs of their population. It's much easier for them to focus on small groups with special interests. So be sure to vote, just to show that you might come and sanction them afterwards.

Not voting is worse than voting

[WillAffleckUW]

Even if you only select choices in a few races.

Get Educated.

[MrAnnoyanceToYou]

It's your freakin' civic duty. I'd suggest starting by listening to the news on your way to / from work. If you work at home, just use news to wake yourself up. No matter how much I hate it, I wake up to Our Fearless Leader talking about his latest brilliant idea once or twice a week.

I suggest NPR, but then I'm an ultra-left liberal commie. Perhaps you can find more neutral radio somewhere else, like Air America.

Re:Get Educated.

[Americano]

Perhaps you can find more neutral radio somewhere else, like Air America.

Yeah, or somebody equally neutral, like Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity!

AIR AMERICA? OMFG, YMBFJ.

Re:Get Educated.

[MrAnnoyanceToYou]

Noone else got the joke. How sad. :

Read something

[ispeters]

This comes from a person who's too lazy to get off his butt and vote in an impending municipal election, so take it as you please.

I think not voting and voting while uninformed are both equally heinous. The solution to not voting is voting and the solution to voting while uninformed is to go read something--the newspaper, the internet, a candidate's brochure, whatever. It sounds to me like the problem isn't that you're uninformed, the problem is that you're lazy (like me). So, either get informed, or tell your family that you're too lazy to vote.

Ian

Re:Read something

[Alizarin Erythrosin]

I don't know about other cities, but in my area, the 2 major newspapers publish a "Know your candidates" guide. This guide explains the platforms and stances on issues that the running candidiates have (but they only cover Dem and Rep candidates unfortunately), as well as experience, liabilities, a little bit about each candidate (Are they from the area? How long have they lived here? etc), and a summary of the ammendments that are on the table. Some of the info can be a bit lacking, as in the example of the retainment votes for judges (they don't discuss case decisions, how they stand on legal issues, etc). I use as many sources as is resonable.

They also have the requisite opinion pieces on who they'd recommend and why. I read those also to get a glance at how they rationalize their choice, and compare it to my rationale for my preliminary picks. Then I do researching on the candidates' websites (including the non-major candidate parties) to analyse further; from the horse's mouth, so to speak. I did all this in about 3 hours last night, and made my decisions.

Re:Read something

[shrykk]

The solution to not voting is voting and the solution to voting while uninformed is to go read something

Well said, sir. Even if you start on election day you can read the manifestos/pledges/whatever of the parties you'd consider voting for, and find out a little about your local candidates. You can turn over in your mind whether to vote on an issue (such as economics, global politics or personal liberties) that you consider most important, or to make a 'tactical vote', go for a big party or a little guy etc. It doesn't take long to arrive at a decision you can at least live with for the next few years.

Re:Read something

[phyjcowl]

Well put, I agree. I've always thought that being a citizen of a country with democratic processes should imply a responsibility to make oneself aware of the issues in order to participate in the election process via voting.

Re:Read something

[hinux]

"Even if you start on election day you can read the manifestos/pledges/whatever of the parties"

Why not just ask G.W.B. to vote for you instead? There's so much spin-doctoring and dubious political campaigns/slogans/leaflets that paying attention to a few sources only gives the illusion of information.

It's like teaching a monkey to type "I can type" on a typewriter and saying it has the intelligence of a journalist.

Re:Read something

[ameoba]

And, even if you vote 'wrong', you're still voting. If your demographic is known not to vote, then the politicians won't take action in the interests of your demographic.

look at it this way

[User 956]

Is An Uninformed Vote Better Than No Vote?

Is crapflooding better than a no post?

Re:look at it this way

[Ambush Commander]

At least they don't assign you karma during elections. "I'm sorry, but your vote is not going to be counted because you have had a history for voting for the wrong presidents in the past."

Re:look at it this way

[fbartho]

wait, wait, wait!! That sounds like a great plan! Just as long as I get to decide which ones were the "wrong" ones, I think we have a workable plan here.

Re:look at it this way

[BigZaphod]

Is crapflooding better than a no post?

Actually, it is.. because it at least gives the perception to others of interest and activity in the online community. No posts at all says no one cares enough to even crapflood the place. Right? Huh? You know it... :-)

Surely you have a top-3 list of issues?

[djh101010]

I mean, you must care about _something_. Social issues, crime & punishment issues, the right to casemod, _something_. It doesn't take that much work to find out what your guy specifically supports; if not, then which of the two (sorry, but let's be realistic) parties pisses you off less?

If you wait to vote until you find someone you agree with on everything, you'll never vote, and far as I'm concerned, you give up your ability to complain about what's going on. Do I agree with everyone I voted for today on every issue? Of course not, but ... I agree with them more than I agree with the other guy. So I'd say that (a) you can't truly be _uninformed_, (b) pick your top issues, and (c) go vote for that person or party which lines up best on your hot issues.

Re:Surely you have a top-3 list of issues?

[Control Group]

I mean, you must care about _something_. Social issues, crime & punishment issues, the right to casemod, _something_. It doesn't take that much work to find out what your guy specifically supports; if not, then which of the two (sorry, but let's be realistic) parties pisses you off less?

True, but that's an argument saying that you should be informed, not an argument that you should vote if you're not.

Re:Surely you have a top-3 list of issues?

[djh101010]

Almost. It's more of a "you're probably more informed than you think you are" type comment. Even if it's vague generalizations like "democrats trust criminals to reform themselves more than they trust gun owners who never did anything wrong in the first place", or "republicans are often religious and make descisions based on that". If he doesn't actually care about any issues, and has managed to reach voting age without noticing which parties have what general stance on them, well, yeah, someone _that_ oblivious probably shouldn't vote.

If you are asking this question you have failed...

[Anonymous Coward]

If you are asking this question you have already failed. You live in a democracy. It is your responsibility as a citzen to GET informed before election day. If you don't, your "democracy" is a fiction.

I voted

[simontek2]

I thought I knew a lot of the stuff I was voting on today before I got there. But I soon realized I had no clue. I still voted. Since I am in GA. I voted most of the people in education out. (Georgia is one of the worst states when it comes to education). But I still voted. no idea if it will help. I found amusing its that a lot of people had no one running against them, and they were still on the balot. I was so tempted to write myself in as someone running.

No

[Control Group]

Of course not. An uninformed vote will be insignificantly different from a random vote, and I don't think anyone would encourage you to go to your polling place and flip a coin to determine each vote. In fact, I suspect that the very same people insisting you go vote would be appalled if you did that.

The people who argue that it's somehow your "duty" to go vote are also full of it. It may be possible - may - to make a case that it is the duty of each citizen to cast a reasoned vote. But it would be ridiculous to claim that it's the duty of every citizen to, again, go to the polling place and flip a coin.

Now, a caveat: I would argue that an uninformed vote is vastly superior to an misinformed vote. So I, personally, am happier hearing that people went and just voted according to whim than hearing that people went and voted straight ticket (I find the odds of each candidate at all levels of government for a given party just happening to line up with your opinions on each issue at each level of government to be quite low). After all, basically random votes should, ultimately, cancel each other out.

That being said, the comment that you should be happy to let your more-informed neighbors make the decisions really ought to be incentive to become informed, so you don't have to trust what Joe Bloggs thinks of who's in charge.

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

damn it, i'm going to roll the dice instead of flipping a coin.

true that right now, i probably have to go with even = party X and odd = party Y. But at least it opens up the possibility of party Z.

Re:No

[pclminion]

Of course not. An uninformed vote will be insignificantly different from a random vote

This sounds totally wrong to me. If you are, for instance, a Democrat and always vote for Democrats no matter what, then this is also "uninformed voting" (because you are only paying attention to the party, not the person or the issues), and it is DEFINITELY not random.

I'd say most people who vote a straight ticket are uninformed. What are the chances that EVERY Democratic candidate is the best choice?

Re:No

[overunderunderdone]

So I, personally, am happier hearing that people went and just voted according to whim than hearing that people went and voted straight ticket (I find the odds of each candidate at all levels of government for a given party just happening to line up with your opinions on each issue at each level of government to be quite low).

I don't vote straight ticket (almost, but not quite) but it's a defensible strategy. The parties have somewhat definable, somewhat consistent agendas and if you are largely in agreement with one of these agendas voting straight ticket makes a lot of sense. Some of your votes may go to "mavericks" who's stated position on a particular issue is one you disagree with and the opposite of the party line... even in that case pressure from the leadership may cause them to vote your way in the end, or at the worst they will make the procedural votes that will move your agenda forward generally even if on the individual vote they go against your position.

On the other hand those mavericks if they are in a position of sufficient power can do a lot of mischief for your positions so the more powerful they are the less sense it makes to vote for them if you disagree with them. If you're looking at being in a solid majority/minority their procedural vote may not be worth the grief they can cause you. If you're on a knife edge (like we're likely to see as a result tonight) your vote for a conservative boll-weevil Democrat or a northeastern RINO Republican is a vote for or against Speaker Pelosi even if the specific person you're voting for is 180 degrees away from you on all the issues you most care about.

Now if you make that straight ticket decision you'll probably be smart to vote in the primaries, since that is where the direction of the party as a whole is determined and you have more viable choices & the opportunity to support candidates that you agree with on more of the specifics.

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

But it would be ridiculous to claim that it's the duty of every citizen to, again, go to the polling place and flip a coin.

So do what I plan on doing: go to the polls and leave the ballot blank.

If you don't think can make an informed decision on an issue then just leave it blank. Why does everyone think you have to have an opinion on everything? Is this some remnant from test taking that you're better off putting something down instead of nothing?

If people irritated at the lack of choices just didn't vote for anyone it would significantly reduce the "mandate" that candidates claim they have. If all the people who didn't vote instead voted for "Nobody", then it would reduce most "winners" to less than 30% of the vote. That seems like a more powerful message because nobody seems to care about low voter turnout.

Re:No

[Jim_Callahan]

It is the duty of every citizen to inform himself of the workings of the political process and exert the full possible extent of his nonviolent influence to see that his society runs well. Occassionally, the situation merits violent influence as well... fortunately this is fairly rare in the modern republics.

So, yes, you have a duty as a citizen to not only make a vote, but an informed vote to the extent of your ability. Flipping a coin is not an issue, as it's not a seperable duty.

(/stoic-derived philosophy)

Re:No

[Mad Dog Manley]

Vote out the incumbent. All politicians are corrupt, but the common theme between all of them is that the longer they are in power, the more corrupt they become. A regular cleaning of the slate is good for the government and the country.

If I remember correctly

[Savatte]

I don't really follow local or state politics as well, but I would say to vote, just in case P. Diddy decides to actually go through with his "Vote Or Die" pledge from a couple years ago.

Just pick people at random

[Kawolski]

It's not like your choice makes any difference to a Diebold voting machine.

Re:Just pick people at random

[Glenn R-P]

I know of one voter whose choice was misread by a Diebold machine today in Maryland. When she tried to correct it, the machine beeped at her. Embarrassed, and feeling that the particular contest wasn't that important, she decided to let it stand.

Re:Just pick people at random

[sholden]

Well she clearly doesn't care much about her vote then, why bother voting at all? Voting for the wrong person is giving them two votes (assuming only those two candidates have a chance) - it can't be that difficult to do it over, surely?

I've gone and got a fresh ballot before because I screwed up and wrote 46 twice (or something like that), when doing my senate preferences (in Australia). People make mistakes (as do Diebold machines it would seem).

voting w/o being informed

[i.r.id10t]

Here's my system - there are a few issues I'm informed on, many not. When I don't know anything about the candidates, I never vote for the incumbent, and when possible, I vote for a non Repubocrat - 3rd party, independant, etc.

Re:voting w/o being informed

[krgallagher]

"Here's my system - there are a few issues I'm informed on, many not. When I don't know anything about the candidates, I never vote for the incumbent, and when possible, I vote for a non Repubocrat - 3rd party, independant, etc."

Wow! That is almost exactly my system. Personally I think you should still cast a vote. There are proably going to be local initiatives that you can simply read what it says and make a decision then. For example, in my district we are voting on whether to allow the sale of alcohol for offsite consumption. That is pretty straightforward and I bet you can decide where you stand while at the ballot box. For the ones you do not feel comfortable voting on, simply leave them blank.

Re:voting w/o being informed

[thrillseeker]

When I don't know anything about the candidates, ... when possible, I vote for a non Repubocrat - 3rd party, independant, etc.

I used to do that - till I started seeing people with agendas even worse than the incumbents as 3rd parties.

Voting is the ultimate exercise in compromise - we have to get used to that - make our choices - and get up the next morning to got to work to keep paying those taxes, no matter who is now celebrating his "mandate from the people" (to spend their money).

Re:voting w/o being informed

[jweller]

I used to do that - till I started seeing people with agendas even worse than the incumbents as 3rd parties.

I find few things more offensive than the non-statements put forth by the gormless republocrat candidates presented to us by the 2 party machine. Every time you see a candidate come on the idiot box and say something like "I'm for family values, better education, and being tough on crime" they are insulting your intelligence. Of course they are in favor of those things. Essentially, all people are in favor of those things. They believe that you are such a moron, that you need to be told that they are "just like you", and their opponent, might just not be in favor of those things.

Of course now the disgusting trend is to not even talk about about what you are in favor of, just mud-sling about what an awful baby rapist your opponent is.

I think the biggest problem...

[oOo Shiva oOo]

...with the uninformed voter is that they're most likely to support the richest candidate.... or the one backed by donations from larger corporations. They have the money to put their name out there on signs, tv, newspapers, etc... I'm not what I'd consider and "uninformed voter" on most subjects, I do my homework before going to the polls... But there are always a few things I just don't know very much about, the smaller positions/issues, and I catch myself wanting to vote for the name I recognize. I know if I look for the name I recognize most, others are probably doing it too. A big problem with that is the candidate that has its name out there the most is often the worst candidate, making deals and giving in to big businesses for their support versus doing things "for the people"

Then _GET_ informed

[hesiod]

An uninformed populace is the death of Democracy. But if you aren't, I agree that you shouldn't vote. I just hope the uninformed voters are equal on all sides.

We have more than 2 choices you know...

[carlivar]

I don't want to vote Republican or Democrat

Then don't! Sigh... why is everyone so stuck on the 2-party system? No wonder people are uninterested and uninformed. We have so many choices with everything in life yet we limit ourselves to two political parties, both of which have more in common these days than not.

VOTE THIRD PARTY! For my third party of choice see my sig, but really please just vote for anyone but the Republicrats.

Re:We have more than 2 choices you know...

[Paul Rose]

OSQ: Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos

Re:We have more than 2 choices you know...

[Moofie]

By saying "third party", you are buying into the prevailing notion that there are only really two parties. That is a designed-in artifact of our voting strategy. I agree with you that it should be changed, but I do not agree that voting for a "third party" is the way to effect that change.

Re:We have more than 2 choices you know...

[bhmit1]

For my third party of choice see my sig

Being a Libertarian myself, I would have. But alas, they weren't running in my district this year. And when I voted for them last year, it was out of protest since they were so extreme I would have much rather had a moderate Republican or Democrat in office than them. However, considering all the people that aren't voting because they don't like one party or another, a 3rd party would have an easy time getting elected if all those people got out of the house and cast a protest vote.

Re:We have more than 2 choices you know...

[rhakka]

The only people who would ever change the voting strategy are "third parties" and independants. It's not just a way to effect the change, it's the ONLY way we'll EVER effect the change needed.

Re:We have more than 2 choices you know...

[noretsa]

Voting third party in our election system IS effectively throwing your vote away. Suppose you prefer Democrat over Republican but your favorite candidate is Green. If you vote strategicly and vote Democrat then you hurt the Republican's chances which is good since that is your least favorite.

If you vote according to your preference you vote Green, even though Green has no chance of winning. This effectively helps the Republican candidate since his opponent gets fewer votes.

Essentially by voting according to your preference and not strategically you help your least favorite viable candidate get elected. Pretty messed up. Note that this is not a feature of all election systems as others such as Instant Runoff do more accurately capture the voter's preferences.

Re:We have more than 2 choices you know...

[Maltheus]

Third parties have no chance of getting elected given our current system. What the "least of two evil" crowd needs to realize is that if the republicrats see any movement in a particular third party, then they may try to co-opt some of their issues, making a third party vote more meaningful than many would expect. That's the reason to vote third party. It ultimately carries more weight than voting for the same party year after year.

I, however, am the lowliest of the low, according to many, since I don't vote anymore. I too use to vote libertarian across the board and may go back to that someday. I stay informed and part of me would love to be voting today (it's fun, I'm boring). But quite honestly, I just don't trust the machines anymore. I don't want my vote getting flipped. And machines aside, I think the whole system is just so thoroughly corrupt that my vote is in not voting. Voting in America is pretty much completely symbolic. As voter turnout continues to decline, it becomes meaningless for any "leader" to say he has a mandate. That mandate applies to everyone who plays the game and I'll no longer be that rat in a maze. I just don't see a way to reverse our current decline until the entire system is invalidated. Freedom is perhaps more a state of mind than a reality and as far as I'm concerned, I'm the only one who has authority over me. Those clowns in the government are just thugs with guns. And I see no point in fighting a losing war over symbolic titles.

Re:We have more than 2 choices you know...

[Peter La Casse]

VOTE THIRD PARTY!

The beauty of this approach is that you don't have to worry about electing somebody who then turns around and does something you disagree with.

Re:We have more than 2 choices you know...

[vertinox]

Then don't! Sigh... why is everyone so stuck on the 2-party system?

When I voted this morning, out of the 15 or so odd candidates, there was only one non-two party candidate and they were a Green. The funny thing was that they had blanks for Libertarian, Greens, and Socialists because it was a generic sheet over the machine.

I suppose I could have written in myself as a libertarian, but that wouldn't really do much to change the course of history.

The only way you are going to get a 3rd party is move to the http://www.freestateproject.org/ or we get a Proportional Representation system

Re:We have more than 2 choices you know...

[burntogold]

If the uninformed stayed home, a third party would stand a better chance. After all, the uninformed tend to run in packs. Most of the people who vote a straight party ticket aren't necessairly all that informed either. They're just following propaganda. "I'm a Republican becuse Jesus is too! And they stand for family! And I love my family! And I hate taxes!" "I'm a Democrat because otherwise children would starve, we'd always be at war, and the minorites would be put in concentration camps!" I'd be willing to bet at least half of the voters for both don't really think beyond slogans, but then, that's politics.

Re:We have more than 2 choices you know...

[Moofie]

I'm a fan of emigration to another planet, myself. Emigration is the only way to start political experiments.

Re:We have more than 2 choices you know...

[eglamkowski]

Voting third party in our election system IS effectively throwing your vote away.

Only because you, and many like you, say it is. Just imagine everybody woke up and said "Wait, by voting R or D, THAT is throwing my vote away!"

You are perpetuating the stereotype and serving to only more deeply entrench an already deeply flawed system. The masses won't change their thought process on their own, they follow a strong example. If a critical mass of people voted third party, the masses might start wondering what the big deal is and slowly change their way of thinking about the system.

Oh, it won't happen by 2008, it may not happen for another 50 years - changing societal opinions take time. But failure to be part of the solution means you are only helping to keep a broken system broken.

Re:We have more than 2 choices you know...

[carlivar]

But alas, they weren't running in my district this year.

Thought about running yourself?

Re:We have more than 2 choices you know...

[King_TJ]

Absolutely! I gave every single Libertarian candidate on the ballot my vote this time around. The most disappointing thing was, in several cases, my *only* choice was a Democrat or a write-in candidate! Not only were there no Independents to vote for, but Republicans didn't even have anyone running against them!

You have to wonder what the point is in voting when you only get one option, plus a random chance to write someone in. (Obviously, lacking some sort of special campaign aimed at it, write-ins are throw-away votes.)

Re:We have more than 2 choices you know...

[Anonymous Coward]

CRAP! Ballot initiatives and referendums allow the people to vote on the issues. There by cutting out the state legislature and their personal agendas.

Re:We have more than 2 choices you know...

[carlivar]

The problem is your statement "even if the Green has no chance of winning." The Green has no chance of winning because no one will vote for him/her. They won't vote for him/her because of reasons you describe, perpetuating the zero chance of winning. We're stuck, unless people do something about it. Voting how you describe is not doing something about it.

Re:We have more than 2 choices you know...

[carlivar]

I had at least 5 party choices for every major race, though I live in California. The only option with only 2 choices was my local Congressperson. Now that has got me thinking if I should run myself next election in my Congressional district. I would not expect to win of course but it would be an excellent experience. I'm an idealist and that is the way it's supposed to work, after all...

But yeah, I agree - we need election reform. Catch-22 though. The Republicrats will never do anything to decrease their stranglehold on our political system.

Re:We have more than 2 choices you know...

[Maltheus]

True, I can have the crumbs off their table. But in the end, a lot of these referendums get overturned by the federal government if they don't like them. See: California, medical marijuana. And they never cover things like letting me bring deodorant on a plane. Or repealing the income tax "amendment."

Re:We have more than 2 choices you know...

[bhmit1]

But alas, they weren't running in my district this year.

Thought about running yourself?

Funny you should ask that. I'm not to the point of my life where I'm ready to now, but in another few years it's a possibility.

Re:We have more than 2 choices you know...

[zbend]

Agreed! but I wish we had instant run off elections http://www.instantrunoff.com/ to reform the B.S. 2 party system. I wrote my Congressmen about it, and got a nice (hand signed) form letter about it. Makes me think that they all know about it but will not change unless forced to.

Re:We have more than 2 choices you know...

[krs804]

Not in NC. We are only allowed to vote Republican or Democrat. Of course, NC also bars Atheists from holding public office, so why would I expect fair elections?

Re:We have more than 2 choices you know...

[Ungrounded Lightning]

When you vote for the lessor devil you elect a devil.

When both major party candidates are bad your vote is already wasted. The most mileage you can get from it then is to use it to show the party brass which way to change their positions to improve their chances next time around.

You do that by voting for the minor party whose stated (and non-fake) position is closest to what you want on the most importand issue(s) for you.

So think about what it is that BOTH candidates are doing wrong that annoys you. Then find the third part that gets THAT issue right (even if it's totally goofy on everything else and has NO chance of winning) and vote for THEIR guy. Get enough people to do this and watch one of the majors change their policies to co-opt the issue.

The Socialist party NEVER elected a significant candidate. But over a few decades they got nearly all of their agenda enacted into law by tactics like that.

Re:We have more than 2 choices you know...

[Ungrounded Lightning]

The most disappointing thing was, in several cases, my *only* choice was a Democrat or a write-in candidate! Not only were there no Independents to vote for, but Republicans didn't even have anyone running against them!

So next cycle sign YOURSELF up as a Republican. Then run a campaign focused on those issues where you differ with the Democrat - even if there are only a couple.

Don't be afraid to admit to (nay, BRAG about) those where you agree, even (especially) if they're issues where the Republicans are USUALLY on the other side. Then the voters know they have a choice on the ones where you DISagree without jepoardizing the other issues. And even the Republicans will be willing to put up with you - maybe even help you - if it means getting a vote for SOME of their agenda from a district where they'd given up.

It worked for Arnold Schwarzenegger. Make it work for you.

And have fun doing it even if you think you're doomed.

(In particular: When they try to apply all sorts of social pressure and character assasination, don't get depressed. Instead, REVEL in it and FLAUNT it! It means that you've landed a punch on the bad guys that hurt them and they're floundering.)

Re:We have more than 2 choices you know...

[Reality Master 101]

VOTE THIRD PARTY! For my third party of choice see my sig, but really please just vote for anyone but the Republicrats.

The reason no one votes for the third parties is that the US does not have a moderate third party; they're all extreme left or extreme Libertarian. Note what happened the last time we had a moderate third party... Perot won 33% of the vote (or whatever the number was).

All of the reasonable people tend to join the Republicans or the Democrats, since that's their only path to making any sort of difference. That leaves only the extremist dregs to join the third parties.

Re:We have more than 2 choices you know...

[response3]

Unfortunately, I disagree that we always have more than the 2-party canidates to choose from. I believe that in most cases that's only true during primaries, after which the most well funded (read: Dem's and Rep's) canidates will continue. In my state, there weren't really aren't to many canidates to choose from besides the Blue and Red ones. Like in South Park, choose between a giant douche or a turd sandwich. Sigh.

Re:We have more than 2 choices you know...

[Scudsucker]

The reason no one votes for the third parties is that the US does not have a moderate third party; they're all extreme left or extreme Libertarian.

No, the real problem with the States is all the people who consider conservative to be "extreme left". Nixon would be a veritable communist in today's GOP.

Re:We have more than 2 choices you know...

[Anonymous Coward]

The Republican party started out as a 3rd Party! If a significant number of people hadn't voted for the 3rd party Presidential candidate in 1860 (Abraham Lincoln) we would still be voting for Whigs or Federalists and the Democrat Stephen A Douglas would of become president instead of Lincoln!

You'll always

[JohnnyGTO]

find something to piss you off about the person you vote for. Lokk at Bush, conservatives were generally happy with him till he started up with the amnesty crap (I can say that after going through the two years of legal hoops need to come down out of the cold north)

The question is wrong for voting *itself* is bogus

[Toby The Economist]

"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."

Thoreau, Civil Disobedience.

To quote Bill Hicks...

[Channard]

"I'll show you politics in America. Here it is, right here.

'I think the puppet on the right shares my beliefs.' 'I think the puppet on the left is more to my liking.' 'Hey, wait a minute, there's one guy holding both puppets!' 'Shut up! Go back to bed, America. Your government is in control.'"

Yes

[Anonymous Coward]

I look forward to the many uninformed moderation points in this discussion.

You are assuming..

[Anonymous Coward]

..a uniform distribution of ignorance between parties - without specific commentary on who or how much, there is at least a statistical possibility that this is not the case..

Re:You are assuming..

[2.7182]

Argghhh! Yes, OK if there are more people who are Republicans, then the Republicans win and vice versa.

Re:You are assuming..

[tsunamiiii]

Congratulations. You do not know how our political process works. 1 Vote 1 Man is not how our system works as an absolute.

Re:You are assuming..

[Anonymous Coward]

What we don't have to assume is that you know what your talking about, dumbass. Read his post and think about it. OF course there is bias but it doesn't change the basic argument.

Re:You are assuming..

[MidnightBrewer]

A statistical probability that there isn't an even distribution of ignorance? Just goes to show you that statistics isn't always right. ;)

Re:You are assuming..

[Anonymous Coward]

1 Vote 1 Man is not how our system works as an absolute.

Yes it is.

Re:You are assuming..

[theshowmecanuck]

1 vote 1 man (or woman... to keep people from having a snit) is true. 50% + 1 vote does not necessarily win the election. Thanks to the electoral college... ask Al Gore about that one.

Re:You are assuming..

[letxa2000]

Electoral college? Uhm... not this year.

Re:You are assuming..

[edward2020]

single-member district plurality voting = nuff said

Re:You are assuming..

[Shaper_pmp]

If one party is predominantly supported by knuckle-dragging mouth-breathing idiots who would rather watch titties and sports than take part in the electoral process, and the other party is predominantly supported by intelligent, educated people with a passionate interest in politics then I'm quite happy for the result to be skewed towards the party supported by people who have a fucking clue.

Unfortunately neither the Republicans nor the Democrats seem to fit the description of Party B above, but TBH, "biasing" an election in favour of education, intelligence and an understanding of politics doesn't actually seem like a problem to me.

You might as well complain the present system is unfairly biased against the apathetic and lazy sector of society.

Re:You are assuming..

[DaveV1.0]

Actually, the Electoral College amplifies the vote of individuals. One's vote has a better chance of effecting the selection of Electoral voter than it does of effecting the direct election of the President.

Re:You are assuming..

[ccmay]

A statistical probability that there isn't an even distribution of ignorance? Just goes to show you that statistics isn't always right. ;)

It's indisputable that the distribution is unequal. As you say, "probability" doesn't even enter into it, unless the probability of an unequal distribution is 1.0.

High school graduates are roughly evenly distributed between the parties. Republicans have a majority among those with a bachelor's degree, or some college but no degree. Democrats have a more bimodal distribution; there are more Democrats among those with graduate degrees, but also many more among high school dropouts.

-ccm

Re:You are assuming..

[quarmar]

What I want is a negative vote. I want to be able to vote against a candidate, rather than picking from the list of his opponents.

I also would like to restrict voting on bond issues to those voters who own property (and will end up paying for the bonds).

Re:You are assuming..

[theshowmecanuck]

Yeah I know... this year. But the parent is saying that 1 man 1 vote is an absolute. So *this year* in most if not all places it is true. But it is not true every year, which means it is not an absolute. :-)

Here's a solution...

[Otter]

You know, you don't have to fill out the whole damn ballot. If you're that tortured over this, go in, vote for an uncontested race where you like the candidate or write-in someone where you don't, read the referendums and initiatives and vote for anything that seems like an obviously good idea and against anything that doesn't.

And then thank the little old ladies for being such a crucial bit of democracy. Now you've accomplished pretty much exactly what I did by voting against Ted Kennedy and for wine this morning.

Re:Here's a solution...

[dkleinsc]

C'mon, Ted Kennedy and wine go so well together!

Sorry, cheap shot, but to ensure you know it's all in good fun I'll tell you that I've voted mostly for Democrats today.

In the time you spent reading slashdot

[flaming-opus]

you could have surfed over to your local newspaper's webpage and become reasonable informed.

It's not that hard to find out a cantidate's position on ten or fifteen topics. No matter who you elect, they will do something you don't like, but you can get a pretty good idea in fifteen minutes.

Hop to it.

Re:In the time you spent reading slashdot

[SydShamino]

No matter who you elect, they will do something you don't like, but you can get a pretty good idea in fifteen minutes.

Absolutely. No person on the planet besides you agrees with everything you do. You are going to disagree about something. There are three ways you can solve this:
1. Find the issue most important to you, and vote with the candidate who believes that way. If both major party candidates agree on this issue, you should probably look at an independent candidate. For example, if abortion is the most important issue to you (and you don't care what else happens to the country, as long as abortion stay legal/is banned), then vote for the candidate who shares your belief.

2. Look a wide variety of issues (perhaps using an on-line political beliefs survey), and see where the majority of your view lie. Vote in the direction of your majority views, even if you disagree on individual issues. This probably means you become a straight party voter (either major or independent party). For example, you may find that your views tend toward libertarian, so you vote libertarian when you can, liberal on candidates running on social issues, and ??? on candidates running on economic issues (republican party no longer counts).

3. Research each and every election in your area, and make custom decisions in the form of category A or B for every candidate. This is what you probably don't want to do, but you're ignoring options 1 or 2 because you think option 3 is too involved.

Re:In the time you spent reading slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

You obviously haven't seen my local paper. All I can find out there is what church they go to, how many kids they have, and what their pets are named.

Well...

[vDiver]

1 - You may not be as 'un-informed' as you think. You probably know more than many others that ARE voting.

2 - Get Informed! The American political process, at it's most ideal, requires the people to vote their conscience, with knowledge.

As long as you don't complain about the result

[moggie_xev]

I suspect it is responsible not to vote, however but not informing yourself you have lost the right to complain about what ever your government does.

We could get in to the long discussion about the right to vote but read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Moon_Is_a_Harsh_M istress The moon is a harsh mistress for some options.

Don't vote ignorant

[ArcherB]

When people say that it is your civic duty to vote, they are only telling you a third of the story. It is your civic duty to lean about the issues, make up your own mind, and then, (and only then) vote. That is why our founding fathers set up our educational system. They knew that an ignorant electorate would not be able to make informed decisions. Otherwise, the public only votes on catch-phrases like "Iraqi quagmire" or "Soft on terrorism".

If you don't know, stay home.

Re:Don't vote ignorant

[Control Group]

That is why our founding fathers set up our educational system.

??

What educational system does this statement refer to?

Re:Don't vote ignorant

[StikyPad]

That is why our founding fathers set up our educational system.

If by "set up," you mean "failed to mention anything about it in the Constitution," then yes. Yes they did.

Re:Don't vote ignorant

[Maltheus]

That is why our founding fathers set up our educational system.

They set up our electoral system. The educational system was set up by the socialists who came later.

Re:Don't vote ignorant

[ArcherB]

What educational system does this statement refer to?

From Wiki:

In the United States, all powers which are not assigned to the federal state by the U.S. Constitution are reserved to the individual states. Since the federal Constitution does not mention education, and the U.S. Supreme Court has held conclusively there is no federal Constitutional right to an education, public education has always been under the general control of the individual states. The steadily expanding role of the federal government in public education since the late nineteenth century has recently become a subject of heated debate, as many states (and more than a few Senators and Members of Congress) perceive the U.S. Government to be overstepping its constitutional bounds.

Dammit! As the product of a public education, looks like I'll be staying home today!

(mod parent up for making me look like a dumbass... and rightly so)

Re:Don't vote ignorant

[mmmiiikkkeee]

"our founding fathers set up our educational system" so we could know how to vote? i don't believe this do you have a source to quote from, or is this just your view? not sure if the founding fathers set up the eduction system or if it set its self up?

Re:Don't vote ignorant

[wass]

If you don't know, stay home.

Bullshit, if you stay at home it implies you're perfectly happy with everything going on in the world. In most cases, people are repeatedly pissed at government.

If you want to send a message to the government that it's time to change, then get your lazy ass to the polls and vote, even if it's for a 3rd party or write-in. If someone is going to win the election, you have to power to make their mandate less strong by acknowledging that you didn't want to vote for them.

If enough people start doing this, candidates will start reaching out to more than just their base.

Re:Don't vote ignorant

[Control Group]

Not at all - I wasn't trying to make you look like a dumbass in the slightest. And I'm not trying to be an asshole now, either, when I honestly say you should consider reading the Constitution. This isn't mean as any kind of insult or criticism, it's meant simply as a recommendation.

It's a fascinating document, and it's easier to understand than many people think it will be. If you read it while keeping in mind that the fed.gov was intended only to be able to do the things the Constitution says, and that the Bill Of Rights wasn't considered necessary, but simply to re-emphasize certain things that many of the founders felt would be obvious given the text of the Constitution*, it gives you a whole new perspective on modern America.

(IIRC, it was Adams who was against including the BoR, since he believed that writing down those rights would diminish others by contrast. He felt that the BoR could later be taken to mean that rights not mentioned in it weren't protected, when in fact, anything not specifically forbidden the people in the Constitution is allowed, or at worst, up to the states)

Re:Don't vote ignorant

[ArcherB]

It's hard to be an asshole when you are right. I made myself look like a dumbass by not researching BEFORE I posted. I was trying to get out of work early so I could make it to the polls which is 2hr away from the office.

I specifically remember teachers telling me that the founders saw to it all Americans had access to a free education in order to ensure that the voting public would be literate. Either they were confused or I heard something they never said. I wasn't all wrong, however as a free education is written into the Constitutions of all 50 states.

As to the US Constitution, I've read it although it has been a few years since doing anything beyond "searching" it for what I know to be in there (much like a free education!) I was kind of shocked to have my search come up empty this time. Personally, I prefer the Federalist papers for light reading but it can confuse me some issues as well.

Good catch!

Re:Don't vote ignorant

[Control Group]

The Federalist Papers are fantastic. I'd campaign for everyone reading those, too, but I generally figure the Constitution is a better place to start. ;)

Re:Don't vote ignorant

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, the reason we have a system of public education is because a (federal) judge (i believe) ruled that people should be able to read in order to read the bible for themselves. I found it the other day when I was reading about the history of our educational system.

The reason we have an electoral college is so that *educated* voters would be able to choose the presidency.

Get Informed, Vote!

[kmcardle]

Apathy is no excuse. Your local paper (or the corresponding website) will have a nice tidy summary of all the issues and the candidates. Take an hour or two and do some reading.

Our system may not be perfect, but it sure beats having no voice at all.

None of the Above

[LGagnon]

If you don't like any of the candidates available, you should still vote, but use the write-in box to vote for "none of the above." If "none of the above" got the majority of votes, they'd have to run the election again (possibly with new candidates). In our current political climate, where the one/two party/parties give us candidates who are exactly the same, I think this would help make them more aware that the voters often don't vote because they don't like any of their choices.

Voting reduces the effect of the "base"

[benhocking]

I agree completely. Your "uninformed" vote is certainly at least partially informed. You've absorbed some information whether you like it or not. A lot of that information is propaganda, no doubt, but hopefully the "average uninformed" voter will get some signal through that noise. However, when the turnout is only 30% (as I believe predictions are calling for), who wins depends a lot more on who energizes their base more than what the majority believes (thus reinforcing negative campaigning).

VOTE!

Re:Voting reduces the effect of the "base"

[Hrodvitnir]

Your "uninformed" vote is certainly at least partially informed.

I will second that and add that if you are informed enough to register to vote and figure out where your polling location is, you know enough to at least vote a party close to your views.

Let alone "dilute the base" without making things worse.

It only encourages them.

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't vote, it only encourages the participants in a sick and twisted system.

I envision a day when no one will vote and corporations will be forced to assume responsibility for the people and can no longer hide behind puppet governments.

Not voting = Voting for the winner...

[Ariastis]

...wich in itself isn't good. If you dont vote, you are actually giving ground for politically active persons/groups by either not providing opposition to their ideas, or by condoning their decision. The only losers in all that are middle/centered politicians who might have gotten your vote with their balanced ideas, while the more extremists ones get a huge amoung of votes from their respective factions because of their inflamatory speeches/politics/decisions. Personally, if I dont know who to vote for for some reason, I select the candidate which, according to the most recent polls, will finish 2nd, so as to diminish the majority, thus enabling debate on a fairer ground and enabling stronger opposition.

Related

[UbuntuDupe]

I'm surpised the Mankiw piece got linked without mentioning a someone similar piece by Prof. Bryan Caplan (who himself links the Mankiw piece) that summarizes his upcoming book, The Myth of the Rational Voter.

Long story short, he argues that because people don't personally bear the cost of holding ridiculous political beliefs, they relax their standards of intellectual rigor, similar to how they do with religious beliefs. They thus use voting to appeal to their "feel good" side rather than seriously analyze the issues (like the would with, e.g. their own finances), resulting in destructive policies all-around.

So he takes Mankiw one step further and says that it's not just ignorance that's a problem, but irrationality. If it were mere ignorance, the errors would cancel. But, Caplan, claims, they don't -- they skew the wrong way.

Re:Related

[Bryansix]

Cliffs on Caplan's beleifs.
1) People are stupid when thinking about politics
2) Because of point 1 democracy doesn't work

Sorry but I have to disagree with Caplan here. In my states listing of propositions where a bunch where they wanted to issue multi-billion dollar bonds. Ads played here where the proponents said that "These will not raise taxes". Well I can cut through the BS and realize that eventually Bonds have to be paid back and that will mean either cutting something else in the budget or raising taxes. So I voted against all but the most necessary of spending initiatives. This is the same kind of reasoning I use with my wife when she begs me to buy her a new Toyota Tacoma w/ the TRD package. Some people can apply useful logic to the voting process.

Re:Related

[UbuntuDupe]

Caplan's thesis doesn't require that each and every person reject logic in the voting booth, just a large enough portion. The incentive to dispense with your "face-reality" reasoning (that you use with your wife) is much higher in the voting booth, where you can costlessly indulge your "long term bonds won't raise taxes!" fantasy. Remember -- your vote doesn't make a difference, so you will never suffer the consequences of it like you would the Toyota purchase.

It's true that some people will buck the trend and spend as much mental effort rejecting "feel good" beliefs, but Caplan's point is that the incentives push enough people away from doing this that democracy results in bad policies.

Re:Related

[Eccles]

That would explain the Virginia gay marriage vote. It was an atrocious referendum, but most people probably just voted on it as a vote against gay marriage, ignoring the other implications. Unfortunately, they won't get to ignore them for long.

Re:Related

[sheldon]

That's interesting. Thanks for the link.

I'm not entirely convinced though that there is anything called an intelligent well-informed voter. It seems that each persons reasons for voting differ. While I agree with the Caplan piece about economic myths, I disagree that those are the sole driving force for many voters.

Oftentimes voters will argue for a position based on party identification, but their real issue for identifying with that party is something different. So unless the voter is self-aware enough of their own positions, it is difficult to understand their real motivations.

I tend to agree with Ezra Klein that it's more important to vote, than not vote. Even if you don't have full information, you have some information and a general feel of where things may go.

Stay at home

[AuMatar]

THis isn't just because you're conservative. If you honestly are not informed about the people/issues, how can you make a good choice? YOu're basicly either making a coin flip, or voting purely on party. If you vote for a republican on party, you could be getting a neo-con, a libertarian, a right wing religious nut, or a fiscal conservative otherwise middle ground type. Basicly, you could be voting for anything. If you aren't willing to spend the time to research the candidates, do your country a favor and not vote.

You lazy sack of SHIT!

[Overzeetop]

Part of being a citizen of the United States is the responsibility to inform yourself about the issues which govern the country. That means reading the ballot measures and reading at least the basic stances of the candidates on the issues. It's not that hard - most towns have a local paper with a pull-out section a couple days before the election with information on who's running. You posted to /., so I assume you're talented enough to use the internet to look up the candidates in the race if you should need more information.

Part of enjoying the status of being in a free state (and all you libertarians can put quotes around free) is taking the responsibility to vote.

Well, then again, you sound like a troll. *shrug*

Re:You lazy sack of SHIT!

[Anonymous Coward]

The newspaper and TV here do not cover the candidates. They cover the Democrats and Republicans running, which are quite uninteresting. Part of enjoying the statuf of being in a "free" state (yep.. I'm a libertarian) is to be free to not vote if you are uninformed or don't feel like it.

some peoples' logic is impeccable

[Anonymous Coward]

I and my left-wing bro in law were arguing about something political one day, I don't even remember what, but he uttered the amazing statement, "well, anything's better than nothing." Given the philosophical leanings of most readers here, or at least most posters, I think you're going to get mostly "yes" responses.

3rd Party voting - can't go wrong in USA

[From A Far Away Land]

In America, where only two parties are given a chance at winning by the media [and thus they shape perception that way into reality], you really can't lose by voting for a 3rd party. If you aren't happy with the current system, staying home isn't getting changes put into place. But if you vote Green, or Libertarian, or Independent, you're sending a message that you don't trust mainstream politics. Imagine what would happen if 10% of the voters went for non-Democrat and non-Republican. Could politicians really believe that that many millions of Americans don't deserve to be represented in Congress or the Presidency?

They'd HAVE to change the system to a more fair electoral system.

Re:3rd Party voting - can't go wrong in USA

[liak12345]

Exactly what I've been doing for years. Libertarian, communist, green, whatever. As long as it isn't the two candidates bashing each other in everything I read, watch, and hear.

Re:3rd Party voting - can't go wrong in USA

[bigbigbison]

I agree. I used to live in a small, rural area. In the last mid-term election 4 years ago there were NINE people running unopposed. I didn't bother to vote for them. In two other categories the incumbent was wildly expected to win (and did) so I got some satisfaction out of voting for the libertarian or green party candidates.

Re:3rd Party voting - can't go wrong in USA

[Infernal Device]

But if you vote Green, or Libertarian, or Independent, you're sending a message that you don't trust mainstream politics.

You're only sending a message if anyone with the actual power to change things is listening. Elected officials at all levels of government have to listen to members of other political parties, but only when there are enough numbers to actually make a difference at the electoral polls.

That said, I tend to agree somewhat with the Libertarians, but, I'd like to see actual legislation passed before I die. So, I don't vote Libertarian - the timeframe to get any effective legislation passed by that political party is entirely too long; especially, when there are problems that need dealing with now.

Re:3rd Party voting - can't go wrong in USA

[DandyRandy]

buddy, what's in your opinion wrong with election system in US? Say, 40+% are for Republicans 40+% are for dem's. Who cares about the rest? This is democracy, where majority rulez! Let's say, I really care about environmental issues, but I don't give a f**k for greens in politics! I just want them OUT! I don't need theese 3rd parties - the same is tru for 90+% of a current electorate! I don't care about this sexual-political 2-5% majority - unless this fuck**g minority starts to push the things nobody entitled them to push! Just stay with your 2-5%!

Re:3rd Party voting - can't go wrong in USA

[hypnagogue]

It is interesting how two sometimes-Libertarians like you and I could be on such opposite sides of the political spectrum. I don't want people passing legislation. I think legislation is almost always the source of the problem.

Therefore I propose the formation of the first political party you can actually trust -- a deterministic party. A party that always votes exactly the way you want them to. Always.

I call it the Obstructionist Party, and Obstructionist Party candidates swear to always vote no on every piece of legislation they vote on. No matter what, if it's a bill, the vote is no. At least that way I can tell if their vote is being bought, and it has the added upside of increasing the percentage of votes needed for bill passage, such that every bill embraces more compromise than it otherwise would. No "republican controlled congress" or "democrat controlled congress". If we have enough Obstructionist votes, then we would have compromise on every bill.

Re:3rd Party voting - can't go wrong in USA

[Xeth]

Ross Perot says yes, they can.

Re:3rd Party voting - can't go wrong in USA

[Cornflake917]

On my voter's ballot, for most of the positions in my state I could only vote for a democratic candidate or a republican candidate. There was one (I think for house of reps) where I could write in a name. How can we vote third party when we aren't even given the choice? Even if we were given the choice, we can't vote for a third party candidate unless we know their name.

I think there is something really wrong with how elections are being run.

Re:3rd Party voting - can't go wrong in USA

[eglamkowski]

Could politicians really believe that that many millions of Americans don't deserve to be represented in Congress or the Presidency?

Yes, yes they can believe that. And they do.

They'd HAVE to change the system to a more fair electoral system.

No, no they wouldn't. It took them over 100 years to entrench the two party system so firmly it will be nigh impossible to dislodge it. What in the world makes you think they are about to give that up? Because a couple of people don't like it?

As long as the majority of people continue to vote for the Big Two, they will only get further and further entrenched. Every election they see as a "mandate", regardless of how slim the actual victory margin may have been. Every time they win, no matter how narrowly, they see it as continued justification for continuing the system as is.

We need to alter the societal mentality that "throwing your vote away" means voting third party, to instead mean voting for the Big Two.

Re:3rd Party voting - can't go wrong in USA

[From A Far Away Land]

The point is, you don't really have to elect a Libertarian to make it clear that the system is broken, when the winner gets 30% of the votes due to the "3rd party" getting more than about 10%. The mainstream parties have no incentive to improve because they know if they lose they just have to wait 4 or 8 years to win again later with no other competition. That is what is breeding corruption, and contempt.

Re:3rd Party voting - can't go wrong in USA

[Random Utinni]

Imagine what would happen if 10% of the voters went for non-Democrat and non-Republican. Could politicians really believe that that many millions of Americans don't deserve to be represented in Congress or the Presidency?

They'd HAVE to change the system to a more fair electoral system.

Huh???... Yes they could, and no they wouldn't. Millions of Americans already consider themselves not to be represented by the current Congress or Presidency.

If 10% of a district voted for a 3rd party candidate, then, in most states, the candidate with a majority would win (i.e., even if it was less than a majority of the population... 40-35-25... candidate with 45% wins) Once elected, why would that politician have *any* incentive to change the system? He might be willing to co-opt some of the 3rd party candidate's policies, if he thought he could capture some of that 10%, but there'd be absolutely no reason to change the system.

If you want to change the system, you'll have to find another way... even electing a 3rd party candidate wouldn't change the system. It's happened before in the U.S. The result is that the 3rd party either dies off eventually, or kills off another party. Multiple parties aren't stable with the election methods in place in the U.S.

Re:3rd Party voting - can't go wrong in USA

[1point618]

"Imagine what would happen if 10% of the voters went for non-Democrat and non-Republican. Could politicians really believe that that many millions of Americans don't deserve to be represented in Congress or the Presidency?"

"They'd HAVE to change the system to a more fair electoral system."

Just like they HAD to notice when a president was elected with fewer than 50% of the votes? Right?

No one will notice anything. I still encourage you to vote Libertarian, but don't think anything will change until you too are encouraging people to vote lib, and 20 or 30% of the electorate is, actually getting libs into office.

Re:3rd Party voting - can't go wrong in USA

[Anonymous Coward]

>> In America, where only two parties are given a chance at winning by the media

This is not from the media, but an artefact of your "first past the post" voting system. There are other voting systems, and other countries, where there are more than 2 parties that compete for government.

Re:3rd Party voting - can't go wrong in USA

[GregWebb]

I'm a Brit.

I'm a member of the Liberal Democrat party, the third party over here.

If you have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Democrats#Ele ctoral_results and note that there's 650ish seats in the UK House of Commons, you'll see that third parties with quite a lot more votes than that can still fail to secure electoral reform.

Re:3rd Party voting - can't go wrong in USA

[From A Far Away Land]

Canada and the USA use first past the post. It's at least party society and thus media's persuasion over the country's shared ideology that contributes to voter apathy and a 2 party [us vs them] mentality. You can't deny that if the media said for 30 days straight before the election that a Green candidate was the only winning option in a district, that they'd get him/her elected, even in a first past the post system.

Slashdotters should be experts at any FIRST past the POST system.

Re:3rd Party voting - can't go wrong in USA

[JesseMcDonald]

But if you vote Green, or Libertarian, or Independent, you're sending a message that you don't trust mainstream politics.

On the other hand, you're also sending a message that you do trust the political system itself. Whether your candidate wins or not you've implicitly agreed to abide by the majority decision. Those who vote have no right to complain about the actions of the government they helped to create.

Illustration: Assume there's a criminal gang and two victims. The gang offers the victims a choice: vote on whether they should be robbed (and abide by the majority opinion), or don't vote and get robbed anyway. There are obviously more members in the gang than there are victims, so the outcome of the vote is a foregone conclusion. If one victim agrees to vote and the other does not, which one do you think has a right to complain about it afterward, the voter or the non-voter?

Re:3rd Party voting - can't go wrong in USA

[Infernal Device]

I don't want people passing legislation. I think legislation is almost always the source of the problem.

Well, how do you propose to get rid of the old, bad laws? They don't just evaporate because the shelf-life has expired. Some do, like budgets, but there's a lot more than just budgets that need to be changed, and we do need some form of operating government, which requires some sort of budget. People don't just volunteer to get the hard stuff done.

Re:3rd Party voting - can't go wrong in USA

[Kanasta]

Plus you should have a choice of entering an empty vote - ie you care enuf to go vote, but you don't care for what's on offer.

Re:3rd Party voting - can't go wrong in USA

[Shajenko42]

Imagine what would happen if 10% of the voters went for non-Democrat and non-Republican.

It's considered a "landslide" if one candidate gets 60% of the vote. If the party in charge can ignore the wishes of a full 40% of all voters (49% if you're Bush), I think they can handle ignoring 10% of voters.

Re:3rd Party voting - can't go wrong in USA

[dumbunny]

Voting 3rd party is idiotic. You're throwing away your vote in order to be 1 person among millions who doesn't really care who runs the country for the next four years. There is basically no difference between staying home and voting 3rd party, except that you waste a half your of your time doing the latter. Maybe twenty years ago voting Green or Libertarian had meaning, but nowadays anyone with a computer and a point of view can send a stronger, more effective message than casting a vote for an unelectable candidate.

Remember the first "Survivor" reality show back in 2000? Richard Hatch and his Tagi Alliance* of four dominated the game because their opponents, the Pagong tribe, didn't understand that the proper strategy against an alliance is to form a counter-alliance. At a crucial point in the game, there were four Tagi members, three Pagong members, and one guy who had decided that rather than participate in alliances, he would vote for people alphabetically. He basically did for Richard Hatch what Nader voters did for Bush four months later -- handed him victory via a pointless, self-indulgent gesture. You can be as Green or Libertarian as you want 364.75 days a year, but when it comes time to vote, you need to choose a viable candidate.

If you don't have the time to research measures and candidates, don't worry. All you need to do is find an reasonable organization that shares your views (mine is the Sierra Club), visit its web site, and follow its endorsements. Let them do the research; let them provide the analysis.

Somewhere in our early education, we are fed the notion that participation in the voting process involves an intimate understanding of the candidates and issues. This is elitist B.S. Most of us are better off just voting by party or organizational endorsement. Having to read the entire pamphlet is tedious, and the misleading and negative initiatives and ads can trick voters or dissuade them from voting at all. And even if you somehow manage to properly interpret every initiative and candidate's platform properly, you are still less effective as a lone voice than you are voting with an alliance.

These are the lessons learned from watching Reality TV.

*There are actually quite a few similarities between the Tagi Alliance and the 2000 Republicans. One glaring difference is that Hatch is currently serving time in prison while Bush walks free.

Re:3rd Party voting - can't go wrong in USA

[vga_init]

Voting 3rd party is idiotic. You're throwing away your vote in order to be 1 person among millions who doesn't really care who runs the country for the next four years. There is basically no difference between staying home and voting 3rd party, except that you waste a half your of your time doing the latter. Maybe twenty years ago voting Green or Libertarian had meaning, but nowadays anyone with a computer and a point of view can send a stronger, more effective message than casting a vote for an unelectable candidate.

Here is the way I look at it (correct me if I'm wrong)...

People should vote for the candidates who they truly want to see in office. If everyone voted by that criteria, then the elected candidate would be the one MOST people want. If you start basing your vote by guessing who is going to win (ie don't vote for your preferred candidate because it's likely that they will lose), you're essentially ruining the value of the electoral process.

On a side note, I think to keep things sane we should be able to do run-off style voting. In my computer science studies, I was once assigned to write software that simulated a certain voting system (the assignment claimed it was the system used in Australia) whereby each voter ordered their candidates by preference. Everyone's preferred candidate was counted, and if one candidate did not have a clear majority, the one with the fewest votes got eliminated and the votes were recounted--the people whose preferred vote was eliminated had their votes counted in favor of their 2nd preference. This way if you vote for a 3rd party that is likely to fail, your vote will be recounted in favor of the next best candidate--if you voted Green and Green didn't win, at least your vote wouldn't help Republicans because you'd have the Democrats to fall back on. Not too shabby, eh?

Re:3rd Party voting - can't go wrong in USA

[From A Far Away Land]

A ranked ballot is possibly too complicated for the average voter who doesn't prepare to vote until they are in the polling station, but it's no doubt a better system of gauging public opinion if they are educated voters.

The GParent's point isn't really wrong from the most important perspective, that winning the election is the most important aspect of a race. Since the perception of election winners is that the losers' voters picked him to win [they have a mandate], it's unlikely that person will rule with the losers in mind too.

Re:3rd Party voting - can't go wrong in USA

[Anonymous Coward]

Voting 3rd party is idiotic. You're throwing away your vote....

They're all rigged anyway, and with Diebold running things, voting is throwing away your vote, too.

Re:3rd Party voting - can't go wrong in USA

[Jonathan_S]

Imagine what would happen if 10% of the voters went for non-Democrat and non-Republican.

Look at the Virginia Senate race (which at this point appears to have party majority in the Senate riding on it)
Webb (Democrat) 1,172,020 49.59%
Allen (Republican - Incumbent) 1,165,109 49.30%
Parker (Independent) 26,102 1.10%
99% of precincts reporting.

The independent vote, tiny as it is, is almost 4 times larger than margin between Webb and Allen.

A difficult decision

[Anonymous Coward]

So, here's my dilemma and my question: Is an uninformed vote better than no vote?

You should always participate in your nations government!

I have slightly conservative views..

Nevermind!

j/k :)

I find it best to vote only for those candidates that you find truely inspiring or otherwise promising. If they fail to reach may I rarely vote for the othe guy 'just because.'

And who knows, maybe our government will look up one day and realize that all this non-participation is a symptom of their failings as leaders

(yeah right)

Moot point, so please vote

[Mark McGann]

The fact of the matter is realising you're uninformed is actually a sign of intelligence, so please vote. It only takes a few minuites to find the key candidates websites online and give them at least a brief viewing.

I'm sure there are people who are so ignorant they shouldn't vote, but the fact of the matter is those people don't know they're ignorant and hence won't choose not to vote because of it.

Re:Moot point, so please vote

[yerM)M]

It only takes a few minuites to find the key candidates websites online and give them at least a brief viewing.

Unless, of course, you are looking at a democrat's website (at least here in Mass). Trying to find who are the key candidates in your area is like slogging through a cranberry bog. I will say that the Republican web site does this much, much better, the first thing you see on the page is how to find the republican candidates.

Re:Moot point, so please vote

[wass]

Especially considering that the vast majority of people that vote do so either because someone (eg their pastor) tells them to vote for a certain party, or because their friend has a lawn sign with that candidate, or even because they were push-polled, etc. In all these cases the candidates are taking advantage of voter misinformation. So why is someone that considers themselves uninformed bad?

If we are supposed to represent the will of the people, and some people are uninformed, doesn't that still require their voice be heard? And I'm sure that however uninformed you think you are, you have some idea about what Bush has done, what he stands for, what Republicans and Democrats generally stand for, etc.

Just get out and vote, if you don't vote you really have no place to complain if you get drafted to fight in Iraq or North Korea, or if your taxes are raised, of if Congress decides your playstation is too violent and won't let you buy more games for it, etc.

Just vote, based on what you know. You're really no less informed than most other people that just vote republican down the line because they've been brainwashed into believing that Democrats automatically raise taxes, etc.

utterly stupid to stay home on election day

[Anonymous Coward]

don't vote for the big guy. go throw the little guy a bone, the independant in your riding. every vote that any party gets, gives them money they can use towards campaigns in the next election. so give the independant some padding to his budget, all the while telling the big guys what you think of them, or, what you don't think of them.

not voting gives special interests more power

[surfsalot]

Special interests vote... they turn out in droves. They turn our political discourse into the 3 ring circus that it is today... you're either a pinko commie liberal who wants to kill babies or a racist homophobe with "good wholesome family values" who wants all automatic weapons to be legal, chocolate covered, and free for kids. Not in reality, but in "TV land" thats what you are, because those are the people that show up to vote.

My advice (for what its worth): if you don't know who you want to vote for, take 30 seconds and look up who is not going to win, and vote for that person. It sends the appropriate message, "I'm want to vote, but you won't provide me with decent candidates to vote for, so I'm going to vote for the homeless transvestite because I at least know where he stands on g-strings."

I agree.

[chroot_james]

If you have no idea what you're talking about, a closed mouth will gather less foot. Ideally, people should try to get and stay informed, but when election comes, if you didn't do your homework... don't ruin it for those of us that did.

Where do you vote?

[bgspence]

In any election I've been to, and I've been to lots, there has been many items to vote on. Often way too many.

You don't have to vote on them all. But it is your DUTY as a citizen to do a bit of homework and make your voice heard.

Remember, the vote is a poll. Your one vote is counted and helps determine the results of the poll. It makes NO difference if your vote swings an election. The importance of your participation is to ensure that the poll is valid. You can't poll the will of the people if the people are unwilling to make their opinions known.

Just too stupid

[Findeton]

If he is stupid enough not to care about politics, then he can be stupid enough to vote while being uninformed. Instead of caring about what are you going to do when you are uninformed, you should go and inform yourself. As Ralph Nader said, "If you don't turn on Politics, Politics will turn on you".

Simple .. just vote against the incumbent

[GaelTadh]

Politicians are like baby's diapers ... they need to be changed regularly.

Not stopping me

[iambarry]

I didn't even read your whole ask Slashdot question. Its not stopping me from posting my uninformed point of view.

Please, go out and vote. But please, vote for the correct candidates. Don't vote for the other idiots.

Sounds Lazy... Go vote!

[moehoward]

I'd have to say that it would probably take no more than 10-15 minutes of quick research to find out where the candidates stand on major issues that you would consider. Nobody considers ALL the issues. Everyone has a top 3-5 list. And, I would say that many liberals and some conservatives are one issue voters (sorry, just personal observation). It would only take a few minute to figure out the candidates that agree with you on your issues.

Take my case today. I had to vote for governor, one congressperson, and then a local referendum to increase some property tax. The other 10 races were uncontested. I just checked the Web sites, and learning about all issues I care about are basically one click away on each Web site promoting each candidate in those races. Simple. Writing this post to Slashdot took more time, as I'm sure would be the case in your election... So, now what's your excuse? Rain? Gas too expensive? Xbox?

Let me get this straight...

[femto113]

you don't have time or inclination to spend, say, one hour reading candidate platforms (every candidate has a website), newspaper endorsements (most provide succinct voting guides), or any of five thousand political blogs, or ask your family and friends who they are voting for and why, but you do have the time to ask Slashdot whether you should still vote? I really hope your ignorant ass winds renditioned to Guantanamo where you can spend your indefinite stay without charges wondering what's really worth your time to understand.

kind of hard to believe

[bobalu]

I can understand not knowing a given politicians' views on any particular subject, but it seems to me it'd be a little difficult to not get a general idea of what's up if you read or see any news at all.

Even if you just take the most generalized claptrap about each party you'd have *some* idea of the difference.

You guys are crazy

[the_unknown_soldier]

As a citizen in a country with compulsory voting, I find even the suggestion that you wouldn't vote crazy. Voting is a responsibility just like jury duty - and you don't have to actually vote, you just have to be present on polling day. Now I know you're asking... Why should so called "uninformed" people vote?

In American you guys have the "NRA" the nutbar Christian organisations, the pro-choice lobby, the this lobby, the that lobby. All of these lobbies are able to claim "If you don't do this, you'll lose a million votes" and the politicians are effectively held by the balls to a policy that only the minority of people really give a shit about. Compulsory voting dilutes the power of these lobbies, and ensures that they can't make it SEEM like the public is against something that really, most people aren't.

Vote. Its the best thing you can do.

Oh and another thing, why the hell do you Americans hold elections on weekdays? Aren't most people at work? Normal people would hold an election on a Saturday...

Re:You guys are crazy

[ispeters]

Oh and another thing, why the hell do you Americans hold elections on weekdays? Aren't most people at work? Normal people would hold an election on a Saturday...

Dunno how they do it where you're from (Australia based on the compulsory voting?) but here in Canada, your employer is required by law to give you some number of compensated hours (three, I think) to allow you to vote, and the government keeps the polls open before and after the typical working day. So, you can keep your Saturday elections--I want my three hours off.

Ian

Re:You guys are crazy

[JensenDied]

I would like to second the motion to hold polls on days where more liquor is consumed.

Re:You guys are crazy

[Millenniumman]

Compulsory voting dilutes the power of these lobbies

It gives more power to people who would be too lazy and apathetic to vote otherwise. They do not need to be affecting the course of our nation. Beyond that, it doesn't affect lobbies' power, although it might affect the power of special interest advocacy groups. Lobbies try to affect how politicians vote, not citizen voters.

Oh and another thing, why the hell do you Americans hold elections on weekdays? Aren't most people at work? Normal people would hold an election on a Saturday...

Wikipedia says: the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November was chosen to keep the election day from falling on November 1, All Saints' Day, a Holy Day of Obligation for Roman Catholics. Tuesday was chosen to allow voters one day to travel to their polling place, as most residents at the time could not travel on Sunday because of church. The month of November was chosen because it was after the crops were harvested.

Re:You guys are crazy

[Jim_Callahan]

Elections on Saturday... I could go for that. Compulsory voting, too.

Then, I'm also a supporter of manditory military service as a prerequisite for having the right to vote, so I suppose I'm one of the crazier ones-- there's probably some logic to Tuesdays and optional voting that I'm just missing.

Re:You guys are crazy

[bogjobber]

A lot of people in the US observe the Sabbath on Saturday (most Jews and quite a few denominations of Christianity, I don't know about Muslims). I'm not sure about the specific religious beliefs regarding what you can or cannot do on the Sabbath for those various groups, but this would definitely cause a lot of people to not vote due to their religious beliefs.

I'd like to help but ...

[LaughingCoder]

I don't have enough information to offer an intelligent answer.

Invalidate your ballot

[mpn22]

assuming Diebold allows you to do this, just make your ballot invalid. On a paper ballot, check both candidates. You didn't like any candidate, but you might as well go out and stand in the rain with all the other people and feel what it's like to actually have a recognized opinion.

Re:Invalidate your ballot

[Glenn R-P]

Diebold won't allow you to overvote, but it won't object if you undervote on a contest. I didn't try to see what happens if you simply hit the "cast ballot" without voting in any contest.

You make the call...

[shrapnull]

Plenty of uninformed poeple vote, and plenty of informed people don't. Voting is a choice that no one can accurately call for you and your circumstance. My personal advice would be to "get a pair" and decide for yourself. Just don't be intimidated by any percieved (real or otherwise) difficulties in the voting process. You show up, wave a card, read the directions and follow them....or not.

Re:Let me answer your question with this statement

[Dr Caleb]

"I don't want to vote Republican or Democrat, only to find out later I totally disagree with something a candidate stands for."

Odds are, you will never agree with any candidate's views 100% of the time, unless you are the candidate. Even then, you won't agree 100% of the time, judging from past politicians.

Why not look at it this way

[finkployd]

A government made up of one party cannot be anything but bad news. At a minimum, vote for the candidates that will oppose the majority party in the Whitehouse (or if voting for a president, vote for the president who will oppose congress).

Finkployd

Suck it up

[lexDysic]

"I live far from grocery stores and public transportation, and never learned to drive. Should I get behind the wheel and risk killing people, or should I wait at home until someone chooses to feed me or I starve?"

Dude, learn to drive. Did you not realize there was going to be an election until today?

Write In a Candidate

[LowellPorter]

Sometimes when I do not like the candidates or do not know much about them, I will write in someone I trust for the position. I know they will not be elected, but it will send a message if the available candidates are not getting votes. You DO NOT have to vote for who is on the ballot, just vote. I'm hoping the idea catches on because if people start seeing a bunch of these votes, mabye we will eventually get better candidates.

Re:Write In a Candidate

[Anonymous Coward]

Better yet, if all the uninformed people write in the same person, they'd have a pretty good chance of being elected.

Quick, someone start the Uninformed Party! The slogan could be "We have no idea what we're doing, but at least we're honest about it!"

definitely not

[disturbedite]

i have always felt that a person shouldn't vote unless they're informed. sure its our "right" but we have many different types of obligations (that i believe imo) we must follow. those obligations are pre-requisites to voting.

Re:definitely not

[Zed2K]

Who is to say your idea of "informed" is any different than someone else's idea of "informed". I say vote for whoever you want to for whatever reason you want to. After all no matter what your reason its important to you. Whether you agree with the candidates beliefs or you just don't like their hair color. It really doesn't matter in the end. What matters most is that you had an opinion on something and voted how you wanted to.

Anyone who says "if you don't know anything don't vote" is an idiot and at the end of the day is just trying to force their opinions down your throat. They are better off just telling the truth and saying "if you don't vote the same way I do you are better off not voting."

Re:definitely not

[disturbedite]

don't get me wrong, i'm not a republican or democrat. "at the end of the day is just trying to force their opinions down your throat": i don't have the slightest idea how that makes sense... "Whether you agree with the candidates beliefs or you just don't like their hair color.": does that include skin color? "What matters most is that you had an opinion on something and voted how you wanted to." all mean is getting as well informed about the candidate as you can so as to make sure (as much as possible) that they mean what they say and intend to follow through. i suppose thats all you really can do. (assuming anyone follows through now-a-days). i don't wanna start a flame war or anything, but to sum up what i meant in my post, the "obligations" i was referring to were GETTING INFORMED is all. getting informed and then voting for whoever you damn well please.

At least you get to complain...

[bedmison]

My folks always told me that you should vote because if you don't you give up your right to complain. If you don't vote, and the guys in office do something you don't like, you shouldn't complain because you didn't do anything to keep them out. If you do vote, and they do something you don't like, you get to A) say you voted for the other guy or B) say this guy didn't do what he said he would, which was why you voted for him in the first place. Then you vote him out during the next election cycle. Or if you live in California, find an actor willing to run and don't wait for the next election cycle.

I live in Virginia, which was subject to one of the ugliest campaign cycles in memory. I almost didn't vote because I didn't think either one of the main Senate candidates deserved to be elected. But then I remembered how easy the electronic widgets make write-in voting...heh,heh.

Of course, without paper ballot audit trails, it doesn't matter, because the results of the election were determined before the voting machines left the factory...

Re:At least you get to complain...

[Anonymous Crowhead]

Heh, I had this "conversation" a while back with one of my friends.

Friend: "Blah Blah Fuck Bush Blah Blah"

Me: "Did you vote?"

Friend: "No [some lame excuse as to why]"

Me: "Shut the fuck up then."

It doesn't really matter.....

[budword]

They vote their wallets too, the problem is figuring out what corporation is stuffing that particular politicians's wallet on that election cycle. Then figuring out which corporation most closely matches your own beliefs. Best of luck with that.

Assume a perfectly spherical voter

[Anonymous Coward]

Assuming a uniform probability distribution on parties

Why do you assume a uniform distribution? This could be skewed by any number of factors including the attractiveness of a party name, effective though uninformative marketing, misconceptions based on historic positions of the parties and the order of names on the ballot.

I have never...

[rysgaard]

understood the people saying they don't care or "pay attention" as it is so nicely said. It's a lazy attitude towards your everyday life - no matter what country you live in.

laziness

[capoccia]

it really doesn't take that long to find out the candidate's positions. the league of women voters does a good job of consolidating all the information i needed.

Re:laziness

[Myopic]

when i read this comment i looked at the moderation expection to find +5 Funny, but instead i found +4 Informative. i really hope you intended it to be funny, not informative.

i don't have mod points or i would mod it -1 Not Informative At All. if you get all your policy information from one source, you are only a hair more informed than someone who acquires no policy information at all.

(that's not to hate on LWV, a fine organization.)

Yeah, you have at least several hours until close

[everphilski]

You have a few more hours to vote, you have time to research. Get off your lazy ass and do some research. Do a quick google and find the representatives for your district and decide who you want to vote for.

Vote anyway

[pr0nbot]

Vote anyway, for a candidate who doesn't have a hope of winning. That way you'll be voting not for them per se (because they'll never get in), but you'll be voting for a broader political spectrum on the ballot.

Or give a foreigner like me your vote, and vote Green!

Re:Vote Anyway

[Control Group]

It's the most important right you have in this political system, because every other right you have is safeguarded by that one right. It's the one you go to war over if it's taken away or subverted.

Actually, that argument is that it's the second most important right, because it's safeguarded by the willingness and ability of the population to go to war over it if it's taken away or subverted - thereby making the most important right the right to bear arms.

I find it an interesting dichotomy that many of the people who most stridently argue that the voting process has been subverted by the people in power are the same people who want to remove the only option for change if the voting process is, in fact, no longer a useful method to effect change.

Everyone should vote...

[__aaclcg7560]

I was having a discussion with shuttle driver before heading into work this work that maybe voting should be mandatory as an requirement for being a citizen. The biggest problem is that too many people stay home instead of performing their public duty. A representative government is only as good as the people who take part in it.

Wait! Wait! I know this one!

[wandazulu]

It's really simple. If you think that politics and all its repercussions will have absolutely, positively, *no* effect on you at all, don't bother. If even one tiny insignificant aspect touches your life, then it's your *duty*, regardless of country, to be informed and make sure that you're heard.

Only then will you be able to put the "Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos" bumper sticker on your car without guilt.

Re:Let me answer your question with this statement

[Neoprofin]

If he doesn't know anything about the canidates other than their party and the position they're running for I would say he's probably uninformed enough to not want to vote. There are plent of people out there, myself included who realize that party isn't everything and would rather have a moderate from another party than an absolute extremist from our own. In most cases it shouldn't make much of a difference because the people who at least think they're informed will also vote and will probably decide the election, but living in a campus town I can tell you there are a couple canidates who I know will win based largely on college students who forgot to read the news for the past four weeks and are just voting straight-ticket Democrat and hoping for the best. The more intersting question is not wether it matters if he votes or is informed, but what the outcome would be if no one voted if they asked themselves whether they really know what canidates stands for and simply stayed home if they couldn't answer it.

Vote Absentee

[stick_figure_of_doom]

Honestly, I'm a freshman at MIT, and I voted absentee this year for the first time. When you can fill out the ballot right on your desk, you can do all the research you need to do right from your computer. Spend an hour or two doing the research that you may not have done, and you can come up with some intelligent things to say. Perhaps some topics you may not understand or feel comfortable voting on, and you can in fact leave them blank. It's more convenient to vote absentee anyway, so register that way.

Local politics?

[andphi]

If you say you're totally uninformed, I guess you're right. But I doubt it. There are House, Gubernatorial, and Senate races to be decided today, but there are also some state, and possibly even some local races to decide as well. Even if you don't know or care about Congressional or state politics, there might still be something local that you can voted on in an informed manner. School board, city council, County Judges or Prosecutors, etc. Is even one of those candidates too (corrupt|dishonest|stupid|busy|conservative|libera l) to be good for your city? Slashdot is almost guaranteed not to know about truly local politics. It's up to you go vote on those things. We can't. We don't even get the chance.

Re:Local politics?

[andphi]

And I totally forgot ballot initiatives (where applicable) - local taxes, smoking bans, bond issues, land annexations, etc.

Hurts independents

[The_Wilschon]

I think that we can assume a uniform distribution on parties. But your forget the independents. If a large segment of the population flips a coin to decide whether they vote straight rep or dem, then those two candidates in each race get a large boost. Not relative to one another, but versus independents they do.

Hypothetical Numbers: Suppose 1/2 the population doesn't care, but votes anyway, by flipping a coin for rep or dem. Now, of the remaining half, who do care, suppose that just under one third will vote rep, just under one third dem, and just over one third will vote for the independent candidate. If everyone who doesn't care stayed home, the independent would have a plurality. If everyone who doesn't care votes, then it is a tossup between the rep and dem candidate, each of whom now have just under 5/12 of the total vote, whereas the independent, preferred by caring voters, only has just over 1/6, or 2/12 of the total vote.

Re:Hurts independents

[Total_Wimp]

I think that we can assume a uniform distribution on parties.

Not a great assumption. Witness all the get-out-the-vote campaigns by both parties. These only work because distribution of voters is anything but uniform. Why on earth would they spend money on gettting voters to the polls if the numbers would just cancel each other out?

The truth is, in districts where the distribution of occasional voters favors their side, they'll try to get out the vote. If distribution of sometimes-voters favors the opponent, they do stuff to convince them to stay home (for example democrats are much more likely to stay home if campaigning is negative so republicans sometimes go negative specifically to keep 'em home.)

Even the subject of the article makes it clear that his would not be a random vote, and that his family is trying to convince him to vote because they know what he would do. Do you think they would spend any time on this if they thought he was voting for their candidate's opponent?

TW

Re:Hurts independents

[kfg]

I have been a registered independent all of my voting life. I did not run (and if nominated would not), nonetheless I am informed that I have received vote(s) for a Congressional seat.

If elected I would serve under the same sort of social ethics that motivate me to remove stranger's garbage cans from the middle of the road, but frankly the idea gives me the fucking willies.

From my personal perspective I think the essential problem is not so much getting independents elected, but getting them to run. The same reasons that make them independent make them disinclined.

Plato had something to say about this.

KFG

Re:Hurts independents

[The_Wilschon]

I have been a registered independent all of my voting life.

I knew there was some reason I liked you.

Re:Hurts independents

[meringuoid]

Hypothetical Numbers: Suppose 1/2 the population doesn't care, but votes anyway, by flipping a coin for rep or dem. Now, of the remaining half, who do care, suppose that just under one third will vote rep, just under one third dem, and just over one third will vote for the independent candidate. If everyone who doesn't care stayed home, the independent would have a plurality.

Quite so. If there are people who care so little about the way the country is run that they cannot be bothered to take the time to inform themselves and go to vote, well, I personally would prefer it if they didn't. Every random vote cast by these idiots on the basis of I Like His Hair, or He Comes Across Well On The TV, or My Witch-Doctor Told Me To, dilutes the votes of the rest of us. If 50% of the electorate stays home, great! That's doubled the significance of my vote, right there!

Re:Hurts independents

[slugstone]

So in short it is a big cluster fu....

Re:Hurts independents

[Anonymous Coward]

If he's from slashdot he'll bring his 1d4.

Re:Hurts independents

[kfg]

Eh, I just wouldn't belong to any party that would have me as part of its constituency is all.

KFG

Re:Hurts independents

[caitsith01]

Plato had something to say about this.

Indeed, I think he said that it was preferable to train a ruling elite, selected based on merit at an early age, to govern society. Not exactly what most of us would associate with democracy, though it could hardly work worse than the current US system - at least the selection process would be transparent, and the selection would be based on merit rather than financial power.

Re:Hurts independents

[MMC Monster]

Well, it's pretty much too late for this year, but I'll have to look for the initials "KFG" on my ballot next year.

Maybe I'll just do it as a write in. Think we can /. the voting process and elect one of our own?

Re:Hurts independents

[kfg]

What the hell have I ever done to you?

KFG

Re:Hurts independents

[Petrushka]

What the hell have I ever done to you?

Apt quote for the day:

... To summarise: it is a well-known fact that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it.
To summarise the summary: anyone capable of getting themselves made President should by no means be allowed to do the job.
To summarise the summary of the summary: people are a problem.

-- D. Adams

Re:Hurts independents

[Bob Gelumph]

Why on earth would they spend money on gettting(sic) voters to the polls if the numbers would just cancel each other out?

Because if they don't, then they can't cancel out the opposition.
It is something both sides have to do to cancel each other out, because if only one side does it, then that side wins.
In 2008, all sides will be "getting out the vote," but the side who wins will be the one who also comes up with another strategy, which will be emulated the election after that.
It is the same cat and mouse game as in any other field, whether hacker vs. security consultant or cop vs. robber.

Yes!

[Cauchy]

> basically random votes should, ultimately, cancel each other out.

Resulting in higher variance, leading the networks to be more likely to make the wrong call. Go vote and throw a pie in the face of the network execs.

Re:Yes!

[Control Group]

Your ideas are intriguing to me, and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

It's not the voters

[Control Group]

It's the voting system. The very nature of our plurality system ("one man, one vote," winner take all) will inevitably lead to a two-party system, because that's the only way to extract meaningful information out of the process. To quote the wikipedia entry on voting method, "[m]ost systems showed some potential advantage over Plurality, in many cases greater than the advantages of Plurality over monarchy."

Re:It's not the voters

[wass]

Yeah, I really don't like the plurality system, as it feedsthis whole concept of people thinking they're "throwing their vote away" if they don't vote for D or R. And then leads people who mindless follow Trey Parker and Matt Stone and refuse to vote since they don't want to eat a shit sandwich (without realizing that even if they don't vote they'll still have to eat that shit sandwich if it wins).

I really like Parliamentary systems, eg the Israeli Knesset, where if you get 6% of the vote you get 6% of the seats. Sure it makes for lots of fractured parties, but that way you fully vote your conscience.

What's even better is that it encourages parties working together to maintain a majority coalitions to get anything done, so there are lots of compromises between the parties, to better represent the views of the people. Unlike the US system, where the Republican party basically has done whatever the hell it wanted in the past 6 years and the Dems could barely do anything except try to filibuster.

And that at any time they can vote 'No Confidence' at any time and force new elections if there's majority opinion.

Re:It's not the voters

[Dantu]

It's the voting system. The very nature of our plurality system ("one man, one vote," winner take all) will inevitably lead to a two-party system

Sorry to disagree, but here in Canada we have a similar do have more than 2 parties. Granted, in any given election there are only 2 parties who have a serious chance of winning, but at any time there are 1 or 2 other parties that can get a non-trivial number of seats. I think you'r argument hinges on "winner take all". If that's literally true, you're right, only 2 parties. The more power you give your opposition parties, the more parties you get. For the last 2 terms we've had minority governments and two "minor parties" the Bloc and NDP have had a significant say in government policy. Our current governing party has strong roots in a former regional party (Reform -> Canadian Allliance, Candian Alliance + Progressive Conservative -> Conservative) because that party grew powerfull enough to become the official opposition for a few terms and basically wiped out (then absorbed) the most similar party that came before it.

In short, you're only doomed to a 2 party system if the non-governing parties has no say in governance.

Re:It's not the voters

[delirium_9]

Parliamentary systems have nothing to do with having a two-party or n-party system. Parliament is where the people go after they've been voted in. having 6% of the people vote in 6% of the members of parliament is about the voting system used. The one we use (and the one that you use as well; I'm Canadian) is First Past the Post. FPP has the advantages of being dead simple, there is a direct link between voters in an area and the person they elect, and it tends to favor majority governments (which then have the ability to get things done for the length of their term).

What you're asking for is a proportional representation system. The downside of such a system is that you lose the geographic link between the voter and their representative. In a small country such as Israel this might not be such a big deal, but in as geographically and culturally diverse a country as America it probably would be.
There is also the fact that coalition governments aren't as stable as majority ones, which means that there would be more elections, which most people probably don't see as a desired outcome.

As far as we can tell, the theoretically best voting system is probably the Single Transferable Vote system used in Ireland, Malta and some other places. But it's complex and would require either way more elected representatives, much larger voting districts or some combination of the two. I'm not going to even try to explain STV. There must be a decent wikipedia article on it.

You could use any of these voting systems (or any other one, even randomly electing people) to elect your representatives and still have a parliamentary system.

Re:It's not the voters

[Jim_Callahan]

The major tested alternative to the plurality system is the proportional representation system, which, let's face it, involves handing direct control of your government to unelected external parties. While it's certainly better at keeping your sheep smug and placid, you haven't actually significantly reduced the threat of oligarchy, you've actually increased it. Give me a less effective system over a more effective one that hands the lawmaking process to a cigar-smoking suit in a dark room any day.

Seriously, heads of political parties already have too much power unfettered by the system of checks and balances... do you really want them to have more?

Re:It's not the voters

[ebbe11]

The very nature of our plurality system ("one man, one vote," winner take all) will inevitably lead to a two-party system

Please explain why this has not happened in Western Europe. The only Western European country, that has anything resembling a two-party system is Great Britain (they have two big parties and a much smaller third party). All other Western European countries have multi-party systems with no signs of them going away.

Re:It's not the voters

[Anonymous Coward]

It's very simple. GB is the only western european country which uses a "winner takes all" system. The other european countries use "proportional representation", which naturally leads to multi party systems with two loose coalitions.

Re:It's not the voters

[hibiki_r]

That might have something to do with how their congressmen are NOT elected individually by district. Most European countries select a party instead of a candidate, and the congressman is selected from the party's election list, using some kind of algorithm, like the D'Hondt method

If congressmen were elected the same way as they are in the US, most of Europe would have a two party system like the one in the US, or at least one with only 2 major parties and some regionalist parties that can win in their state.

Re:It's not the voters

[Mad Dog Manley]

No it's not a product of winner take all. In Canada, it is one man, one vote, yet there are 5 official political parties with at least 5% of the national vote. The largest party only has 30% of the vote.

In fact, in Canada, your vote counts for money, $1.75 per year per vote to the party you voted for. The reason is that corporate donation maximums were dropped from $100k's+ to $1000 maximum per year. It has taken the corporate influence out of politics.

Re:It's not the voters

[j-beda]

There is also the fact that coalition governments aren't as stable as majority ones, which means that there would be more elections, which most people probably don't see as a desired outcome.

I think that the data on stability of governments is not as clear-cut as you seem to think. I seem to recall that the BC-STV literature indicated that minority governments seemed to have similar stability. Canada's history with minority governents is not all bad - we got health care, CPP and a flag out of the 1960's minorities. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minority_governments_ in_Canada

Hopefully BC and/or Ontario will soon (2008 referendum for BC I think) come up with an improved system - see http://www.fairvotecanada.org/

Vote for what you know, ignore the rest.

[Anonymous Coward]

Much better to vote for those about whom you have some warm and fuzzies, and leave blank the offices that you are completely uninformed about. Whatever you do, don't vote on the basis of who had the most signs, most attractive pollsters, or some other meaningless variable.

Uninformed vs. Informed

[debilo]

What exactly does "uninformed" as opposed to "informed" voting mean, or more precisely: How can I know if I really am informed, even when I'm generally interested in politics and pay attention to what's going on? I know it's easy to deduce a politician's general stance on things by watching/reading interviews and speeches, but that's not enough to be really informed now, is it?

And regarding actually paying attention to the content of said speeches and interviews: politicians have shown that they usually cannot be trusted, that they will promise almost anything during election campaigns to get more votes, that they often have a tendency to turn 180 degrees once they're established in office, that they can be bribed, that they lie, etc.

So, what truly constitutes "being informed"? I have the feeling that the majority of votes out there actually are uninformed ones.

Yes, don't vote; but ..

[Anonymous Coward]

Surely nobody wants elections to be decided by uninformed voters. But what is "uninformed"? Did you ever watch Jay Leno's Jaywalking? Those people are averagely-informed voters ...

Personally, I have little respect for someone who says he/she has no interest in politics. If enough people adopt that attitude, the politicians will turn us all into serfs. Of course, a lot of people don't want to be free; they want to be told what to do. But the freedoms lost as a result of voter apathy are lost by all of us.

I say...

[Skreems]

Are you sure your opinion is really your own, and not swayed by campaign rhetoric? If you think you can honestly vote for people you believe will support the way you think things should be run, then go for it.

If you're unsure, take half an hour and research the candidates and ballot measures. It's pretty easy to find enough information to make a reasonable decision. Most states publish voter guides online which contain a few paragraphs from each of the candidates. A trusted local paper will usually have a rundown of the candidates and issues in the week leading up to the polls.

Your just a tool

[gutano]

I always thought the "Go vote" campaigns where led by the side who noticed that uninformed voters tend to vote in their favor. IMHO this is quite the opposite of fulfilling your patriotic duty.

Re:Your just a tool

[Anonymous Coward]

You're. The word is YOU'RE!.

Uninformed - so what? Is he doing his job?

[Captain Kirk]

Most politicians tell you what they think you want to hear. Voters are all uninformed as no-one knows what is really going on in the corridors of power where money and politics meet.

But...and its a big "but"...every elected politician has a job. Are you happy with the results of his work? Are the streets cleaner, or are taxes fairer, or is whatever you see as being the function of that elected offical being done right.

If yes, please do vote for them.

else, throw the bum out - he is not earning his salary.

In a democracy, we all pay the politicians salaries and expenses. Everyone knows if they are satisfied with things or not. So no-one is excluded from voting.

Any talk that "uninformed" people should not vote means that some politician wants to carry on getting the salary, the publicity and power though they know they aren't earning it! Throw that bum out!!

Question is a Logical Falacy!

[mpapet]

Which ones I can't get to right now, but the attitude is common.

1. If you are not following politics, then how would you -ever- know if your representatives did something you did not agree with.
2. It's a good bet your Representatives are going to do things you disagree with. Again, since you don't follow politics, I'm not sure how it is you will know.
3. It took me about an hour last night to check my understanding of the candidates/issues and then make voting notes. Your favorite search engine makes it easy.

It's 1:45 PST, so pretty much everywhere in the U.S., your polls should be open and you have an hour to get your facts straight on the issues and candidates in your area.

Many people have fought and died for over the last 200+ years so that YOU have the priviledge of participating in our democracy. There is no excuse. Get informed and Go vote.

answer

[treeves]

I didn't read the summary much less TFA, but the answer is "NO!"

But is uninformed voting any better?

[dominator]

"But it's not rational for the country's non-voters to expect that voters' engagement in the political process will necessarily bring about a better outcome for them."

It's hard to disagree with that. But it's also not rational for the country's non-voters to expect that random or uninformed voting will necessarily benefit them either. Would that be statistically different than if they had not voted in the first place?

The right course in a democracy is to educate the electorate on the issues and convince them that it is in their best interests to vote based on an analysis of those issues. We need to convince the greater electorate to become the "rational, self-interested actors" that Klein refers to in his article. In theory, that's what TV and Radio Ads do. In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. But, in practice, there is.

Yes. We need your help ...

[joeyspqr]

... to carry the blame. and the deficit.

The better choice

[Heph]

At the bare minimum, go in and cast a blank ballot. By at least going through the motions it will set a pattern for the future when you may decide to look into the candidates and issues beforehand.

Second to that, if you have an informed opinion on any of the issues on the ballot, be it person you want to win or yes/no on a proposition, just vote for those.

Alternatively, you can go the dissenter route and vote for all long shot independents in an effort to display your dissatisfaction with the available choices.

But for me:

I'm not happy with all the mistakes that have been made in the past few years, so I'd love to see congress change control. That is my motivation, but what drives you is your choice.

Pop Quiz

[Luke Psywalker]

I've always supported the idea of a pre-vote pop quiz about politics, so your vote only counts if your not a moron and understand what your voting for.

Of course if I was a position to make this sort of change I would also increase education so people are not so freaking dumb in the first place.

Even if...

[gnu-sucks]

Even if you were a so-called "informed" voter, chances are nearly 100% that whomever you vote for will disagree with you on something. Probably quite a few things.

By conventional logic, you would vote republican if you tend to side with 'conservative' ideas, and the converse of voting for democrats, etc. And although your vote goes towards someone you agree with on what is hopefully a majority of the time, you know, you *absolutely know* you will disagree with some of their ideas. And you will certainly disagree with some of their decisions made if they are elected. Heck, I disagree with myself about five times a day...

I think a better question is:

What if nobody is running I want to vote for?

Re:Even if...

[Sloppy]

What if nobody is running I want to vote for?

That's when you think about who you would vote for, find out that there are millions of people who think the same way you do (as is very likely the case, unless you're a total loon, and even then it's damn likely), and then you either form a new party, or join the existing party that you didn't know about. Then, before the next election, you make sure your party picks the right people and gets 'em on the ballot.

Spoil the Ballot

[HappySqurriel]

On the other hand, if you're not able to vote on a topic (whether it is because you're uninformed or can not decide between your options) go to a polling station and spoil the ballot.

To simply not show up to vote says that you're too lazy to vote (and that you don't take the right to vote seriously) ... spoiling the ballot says you do not believe you have a good option.

Re:Spoil the Ballot

[freeweed]

Or you're too stupid to mark only one box.

We still need an option for "none of the above, thanks".

Re:Spoil the Ballot

[Gerzel]

Well to me voting is a duty of each citizen in the US. You should vote. And part of voting is taking the time to at least look up and read something about the candidates. It doesn't take much time people. We are talking a few hours every couple of years to research the candidates, think about what you want, and actually go to the polling stations to vote.

People who don't vote because they are uninformed should try to make themselves more informed. It isn't that hard. If you are reading this then you probably can use google or another search to find a candidate's website. At least read that and see what they say they stand for if nothing else.

Re:Spoil the Ballot

[yali]

I'm frankly getting sick of the "no good option" argument, just like I have a low opinion of people who can't bother to get informed about the issues. True, there may not be a candidate that you agree with 100%. But there are always real differences among the candidates, and chances are very good that if you give it a little consideration you will find that one is preferable over the other(s).

Remember in 2000, people who made the argument that Bush and Gore weren't any different from each other? (Sometimes accompanied by the argument that 3rd party candidates had no hope of winning, so there was no point going that direction either.) Consider the last 6 years, and ask yourself if they were right. Would the US be in the same place if Gore were president? (Of course, different people will reach different conclusions about whether that would be a better or worse place. But it's pretty hard to argue that it would be the same.)

If you don't feel informed enough to make a choice, don't justify your laziness with a false dichotomy of uninformed vote versus no vote. Get off your lazy, whiny butt and do your duty -- yes, your duty -- as a citizen. Inform yourself and cast a vote.

Re:Spoil the Ballot

[Decessus]

I don't know how it is for you, but when I went to the ballot I had the option of writing in a candidate. This would be the same as "none of the above", correct?

Re:Spoil the Ballot

[DeepZenPill]

Damn right.

"As soon as any man says of the affairs of the State "What does it matter to me?" the State may be given up for lost."
--Jean-Jacques Rousseau

Re:Spoil the Ballot

[Mad Dog Manley]

We still need an option for "none of the above, thanks".

There's a simple solution to that - write it down beneath the candidate's names, draw a little square next it to and make a check in it. Sure, you've spoiled a ballot, but you've made a point. Better to do that than to stay at home and complain.

PIPA polls suggest non-uniform distribution

[FungiFromYuggoth]

If you check polls from 2004, you will find that Bush voters were more likely than Kerry voters to be wrong about Bush's positions, and that independent voters were often wrong but wrong less often than Bush supporters. There's no reason to assume the uniform distribution.

Re:PIPA polls suggest non-uniform distribution

[Anonymous Coward]

Was there ever any doubt? I thought everyone already knew that most Republicans had left the reality-based community a long time ago! All they care about these days is getting back at Saddam for attacking us on 9/11 with his WMD and stopping gay atheists from burning flags at their weddings. Anything to distract from their tendency to get busted for corruption or for having sex with men (and boys!) or any other number of atrocious things.

Re:PIPA polls suggest non-uniform distribution

[b17bmbr]

If you check polls from 2004, you will find that Bush voters were more likely than Kerry voters to be wrong about Bush's positions, and that independent voters were often wrong but wrong less often than Bush supporters. There's no reason to assume the uniform distribution.

well, alot of us held our noses and voted for him because we didn't think kerry got it regarding the war. we also hoped and prayed that he would leave his big spending, federal takeover of everything, ruinous trade and immigration policies. but alas, we've been hoodwinked. and now he's not even fighting an agressive war. I want my money back!!!

Re:PIPA polls suggest non-uniform distribution

[Rei]

By the way: to other gay atheists out there short on flags and kerosene: now is the time to purchase them on ebay, before wedding season starts.

Just keep your personal, embroidered copies of the homosexual agenda secure, okay? We can't let the right get ahold of any of them.

Re:PIPA polls suggest non-uniform distribution

[Anonymous Coward]

So your primary concern was about the Iraq war and yet you voted for the guy who has never seen a day of battle over the decorated veteran? I think you are the definition of DUMBASS.

Re:PIPA polls suggest non-uniform distribution

[b17bmbr]

though I don't usually respond to AC's, being a decorated veteran is respectable and honorable, but doesn't imply that he understands the nature of the enemy or how to combat it. when kerry made the prostitition analogy, he lost me. and, our two greatest war presidents, FDR and Lincoln, never saw combat. LBJ, who was a decorated veteran, was in charge of our largest military fiasco ever.

I find it odd that somehow, those who protested the vietnam war are now putting so much faith in generals, the same group they despised so much in their day. and I find it odd that suddenly military service is the necessary imprimatur for the presidency, when it mattered not at all when Clinton ran. And I find it amusing that Hillary now has standard which she will be unable to meet. I am sure that it will be curiously overlooked though. It is an historically dangerous standard I might add, one that goes back to the Romans. in fact, read the constitution, the part about the president being a resident. That was put in there to ensure that a conquering general would not "cross the Rubicon" in America.

Re:PIPA polls suggest non-uniform distribution

[Straif]

The various PIPA studies have been torn apart by people from both sides of the political spectrum. PIPA itself it essentially a left wing organization used to push 'news' like this through funding from other more openly liberal groups.

They repeatedly use overly subjective words like "substantial" in their questions to which they determine the acceptable answers as well as selectively choose their topics to try and maximize their results. It's simply a feel good type questionnaire to which they have already determined the outcome. On some sites their surveys are even compared to Push-polls which any fan of Karl Rove knows, are great political tools but of relatively no scientific value.

Re:PIPA polls suggest non-uniform distribution

[LurkerXXX]

hoodwinked? Why did you think he or the Republicans, who have been spend crazy since the Reagan era, would suddenly actually be in favor of smaller government, rather than just claiming they are so, as they've done for ~30 years now while building a bigger government than the Democrats ever did?

And instead of hiring a guy who actually fought in a war to prosecute one, you hired a mental midget who skipped out on his turn to serve.

You weren't hoodwinked. You were stupid.

Re:PIPA polls suggest non-uniform distribution

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry... did you say that you voted for him because you thought he would _change_ from what he was doing in his first four years?!? Can you say that one more time, just so I can be sure of your sheer and utter stupidity??!

C'mon, man. You need to be more intelligent here. The issues parties trumpet around election time are not the issues that are important, and the promises they make, especially when they have proven not to keep their promises, and when they are promising to 'do things differently from now on if you just give them one more chance' are totally false.

Sorry for the acerbic intro, but... your stated reason for voting for Bush is that of someone who fails to learn from the past. Please attempt to change that.

Re:PIPA polls suggest non-uniform distribution

[FungiFromYuggoth]

Ah yes, disproof by vigorous assertion. Don't know the latin for that one.

Here is the questionnaire for the results I quoted - would you be so kind as to illustrate the "repeated" "subjective" words in the questions? And of course they selectively choose the topics of global warming, defense spending, Israel and Palestine, and the role of UN, trivia with no relevance to why people choose Presidential candidates.

You really didn't say anything else substantial enough to refute, but I would like to point out that "on some sites their surveys are even compared to Push-polls" doesn't make it true.

Re:PIPA polls suggest non-uniform distribution

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry... did you say that you voted for him because you thought he would _change_ from what he was doing in his first four years?!? Can you say that one more time, just so I can be sure of your sheer and utter stupidity??!

"There's an old saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee -- that says, fool me once, shame on -- shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again."

Re:PIPA polls suggest non-uniform distribution

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't speak for everyone of my political leanings (well, ok, I'm just masquerading as a Democrat--anarcho-syndicalist candidates don't get on the ballot very often, for obvious reasons), but I certainly find Hillary unable to meet several standards. As for military service, I have two unrelated points there. First off, I don't think anyone was parading it as being necessary for a president, but suggesting that someone with military experience might be a better wartime president than someone without (except it wasn't war, yet again.). Secondly, you chose Lincoln as great wartime presidents? He was a federalizing monster on Bush's scale at minimum. Anyway, it wasn't officially war (just like everything else since the Great Patriotic War), but Dwight Eisenhower's exclusion from your list casts serious doubts on its worth.

(FYI, I am not the same Anonymous Coward)

Re:PIPA polls suggest non-uniform distribution

[b17bmbr]

but Dwight Eisenhower's exclusion from your list casts serious doubts on its worth.

exactly what war did Eisenhower lead us through as president. yes, he finished/resolved the Korean War, but it was one he hardly had a leadership role in. and it is fair to argue the resolution of said war has left us lingering problems today.

Re:PIPA polls suggest non-uniform distribution

[Anonymous Coward]

> Just keep your personal, embroidered copies of the homosexual agenda secure, okay? We can't let the right get ahold of any of them.

Too late! I already read it and found out when all your hair appointments are, not to mention that upcoming visit to the dentist! Bwahahahahaha!

Re:PIPA polls suggest non-uniform distribution

[Jim_Callahan]

Wrong about his stated positions at the time, or wrong about the positions demonstrated by his activities during his time in office? To put it bluntly, Kerry never held executive post and thus never got the chance to change his positions in the face of changing conditions, increasing informedness, and sheer cussedness, as most presidents eventually do. Plus, his platform only had one coherent point, and "I'm not Bush, you know" is not something that even a Democrat's memory can easily distort beyond recognition.

In summary, I'm secure enough in my skepticism of your claim to tell you with much confidence that you're delusional. The poll data probably indicates that you're not alone in your delusion, but I would assert that that's really not an excuse.

Re:PIPA polls suggest non-uniform distribution

[Alsee]

Ah yes, disproof by vigorous assertion. Don't know the latin for that one.

The technical latin term for that is: falsidicus.

-

Re:PIPA polls suggest non-uniform distribution

[Jim_Callahan]

Lincoln ran a fairly similar path to Bush, you know, except he was a bit more blantant about it. The whole "Burning down the offices of newspapers that object to my policy" bit was not exactly subtle. And by the very act of taking the presidency, he actively caused a war which he knew he could have prevented by stepping aside. And he ruined the hell out of his enemy's infrastructure and left the country with the bill. After making a relatively unprovoked assault against a sovereign nation he'd spent some time villifying, too!

So yeah, accepting your 'greatest war presidents' assertion puts even Bush's arguable worst errors in a new light. I was going to make a snarky comment here, but I just realized that this analogy gives me great hope for the whole Iraq thing being worth it in the end... bummer that it's going to take a bit over a century for beneficial policies of reform to finally catch on there, though. Thanks.

(P.S. As far as FDR... yeah, i got nothing, except maybe Japanese internment being a historical predecessor of guantanamo.)

Re:PIPA polls suggest non-uniform distribution

[Hatta]

well, alot of us held our noses and voted for him because we didn't think kerry got it regarding the war.

And you thought Bush did?

Re:PIPA polls suggest non-uniform distribution

[Straif]

My earlier post was with regards to PIPA studies in general.

For this one in particular, it's relationship to a push poll is that it focuses mainly on topics that are considered liberal strong points (anti-war, UN) where conservatives are generally all over the map so that it can make a headline for itself. It is essentially asking people their own opinions and since they support a certain candidate most people generally assume that their candidate of choice agrees with them. Notice the strongest conservative question, on defense spending, went in favor of Bush supporters.

On a side note, 2 of the questions that they gave credit to Kerry supporters for, the ICC and Kyoto, he supports in principle but not necessarily in their current forms so in effect he both supports and doesn't at the same time meaning that if the numbers had been reversed they would have legitimately been able to swap what they considered the correct answer and been able to defend it.

Re:PIPA polls suggest non-uniform distribution

[Anonymous Coward]

MOD PARENT UP TO 11.

Here's the answer you're looking for

[Sloppy]

ras_b, you suck.

Test of ignorance

[tommyhj]

What about the kind of people who know nothing about polotics, but think it's cool that we kill muslims in the middle east? They will probably vote. Are they informed? What about a very simple test at the start of each vote to verify that the voter has a minimal knowledgde of what he's voting for. People who fail that test will only have their vote count for ½ :-). That would make a better world!

Re:Test of ignorance

[ximenes]

How about literacy tests?

Then get informed!

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you realize just how many people in the world would kill or die to have the right to vote? How many in fact, HAVE killed or died in the name of establishing and maintaining citizens' rights to have some control over their government?

The obvious solution to being uninformed is to do some reading and get informed, then go vote. Apathy and ignorance on the part of the citizenry are the main reasons that George W. Bush has been able to start stripping all the real meaning from the words "democracy" and "freedom" in the United States. Start paying attention and start acting like a responsible citizen.

When I'm uninformed...

[GWBasic]

When I'm uninformed, I do some of the following strategies:

• Show up to vote, but only vote on the candidates / questions that I am familar with. For example, 4 years ago I only voted for 1 candidate and left the rest of the ballot blank. Today I left about 1/3rd of the ballot blank.
• Vote for people who can't win, but support issues that you agree with. For example, when I first started voting I'd give a lot of votes to 3rd parties. Also, if I don't care about an election I'll vote for the guy who'll legalize pot. (The 3rd party vote ends up swaying major parties.)
• Spend 30 minutes watching a debate! Sometimes you'll find that one of the candidates is such a looser that you HAVE to vote against him/her.
• Read the high-level description of ballot initiatives; if they're confusing, vote no. Chances are, some dirty politicion is trying to pull a fast one.
• Don't be afraid to give a party your entire ballot, if you think the other party has too much power.

I hope this helps!

Re:When I'm uninformed...

[pclminion]

Show up to vote, but only vote on the candidates / questions that I am familar with. For example, 4 years ago I only voted for 1 candidate and left the rest of the ballot blank. Today I left about 1/3rd of the ballot blank.

I agree, but NOT FOR BALLOT MEASURES. Government office is a temporary position, but ballot measures seldom are reversed even if they do obvious harm once passed. When in doubt, VOTE AGAINST CHANGING YOUR STATE'S CONSTITUTION.

This is a big problem in Oregon. Too many things, in my opinion, are placed on the ballot as Constitutional amendments. I vote against most of these things, even if I fundamentally agree with the measures. The Constitution is not a dumping ground for piecemeal amendments. These issues should go through the normal legislative process.

Re:When I'm uninformed...

[pi_rules]

You could also just vote for the/a challenger. Odds are they've done less to screw with you than the yahoo already in office!

Re:When I'm uninformed...

[TheoMurpse]

Indeed. In Texas, we have over four hundred fucking amendments to the Constitution. I'm of the opinion that the constitution ought to be like Ring 0. Granted, the Texas Constitution is extremely restrictive in that government powers are only those specifically enumerated, so statutes alone cannot grant new state powers. This is the problem.

Re:When I'm uninformed...

[GWBasic]

I totally agree with you!

I'm just starting to learn how to vote on ballot measures. I actually have to thank an Oregon radio show for telling me how to handle these. (A few weeks ago I was in Portland for OOPSLA.) The host said, "When in doubt, vote *NO*". It was the most helpful bit of advice for handling my local ballot initiatives, which were pretty much BS.

What really helps is that I recieve the voter pamphlet in the mail. When I was in college, (and I didn't live at home,) I really didn't get an oppertunity to study the ballot measures.

Re:When I'm uninformed...

[Starcub]

Also, if I don't care about an election I'll vote for the guy who'll legalize pot. Ugh. Please don't do that. Pot is both extremely addictive and harmful to the body. Think of the impact it would have on society if it were legalized.

No, But...

[MaceyHW]

A completely uninformed vote is no better than no vote if only because any two uninformed votes should, statistically, cancel each other out.

However even as someone who doesn't 'follow politics' at all, you are aware enough of your world to find, read, and post a question to slashdot, you should be able to determine which candidate or party, writ large, would further your interests or shares your basic assumptions about how humans behave and what motivates them. None of us has a 'secret formula' for processing all possible information available to evaluate candidates. Of course the more information you have the better your decision will be, but that shouldn't prevent you from making a decision with the (little) information you have.

If nothing else I would think you would know broadly where the two parties stand on the issues on which they disagree most clearly. i.e. do you think abortion is murder? do you think homosexuals should be allowed to marry? Are there other important issues where you need more information? Of course, but that doesn't mean you can't use the issues you understand and have an opinion on to make a decision. Heck, posting the question to slashdot and reading the answers will take more effort than doing some basic boning up on the candidates.

No excuse for ignorance.

[neksys]

Go to the party websites. Spend, seriously, 10 or 15 minutes there, reading what they're about. Thats half an hour out of your day, and I will guarantee that you are more informed than a scary percentage of the American voting public. There are very, very few people who are actually fully aware of the issues - they either vote one way out of habit or family tradition, or based on 30 second sound bites. Neither are particularly informative.

30 minutes of your time isn't too much to ask.

Obliviousness is to bliviousness as...

[Anonymous Coward]

You should definitely vote anyway. For the Libertarians or the Greens. Because both the Republicrats and the Demicans are for baby-mulching, Burmese lizard porn, and regime change against the harmless, godly people of Familyvalustan.

I read it in the Wikipedia.

You did say you weren't paying attention at all, right? At all, right?

Excellent.

Why do people encourage others to vote?

[mgrivich]

The normal reason to encourage people to vote is if you expect them to vote the same way as you. Encouraging uninformed people to vote means that you expect uninformed people to vote with you. This is not a good sign. I prefer to inform people, rather than just speak on the virtue of voting. Once you are informed, the need to vote becomes obvious.

Vote Your Gut

[Flamesplash]

You're gut has an opinion. In the current election it's more of a for or against the ruling party, so vote based on that.

If you don't like things, then vote Democrat. Yea the two party system sucks, but you aren't going to get ride of the Republicans unless everyone against them votes for the Democrates. The entire voting system needs overhalling for the two party system to fall.

If you do like how things are going, then vote Republican to keep them around.

Vote Cthulhu

[JensenDied]

Why vote for the lesser evil?

Re:Vote Cthulhu

[dbIII]

There hastur be a better answer.

Re:Vote Cthulhu

[Cro Magnon]

Compared to the people on the ballet, Cthulhu IS the lesser evil!

So how does one become informed?

[grommet_tdi]

I, like most people, do not have time to thoroughly research the issues in order to cast an intelligent vote. I mean, this is the reason we have a representative democracy...we "outsource" the analysis to the experts, which in this case is our representatives. Now whether that really happens is subject to much debate, which I'm sure will throughly hammered here on /.

Regardless, I found Project VoteSmart to be a reasonable way to quickly get up to speed on the candidates, the issues, and the intersection (voting record) between the two.

http://www.vote-smart.org/

Uninformed is a poor excuse

[Anonymous Coward]

If you think that being uninformed is a problem then deal with it. Get informed. Leaving it to others who are "better informed" is one of the most idiotic statements it has been my misfortune to hear. The "right to vote" is a priviledge that has been granted to you. Not to use it is an insult to those who have fought and died to preserve that right.

Spoil Your Vote

[Anonymous Coward]

Sometimes the best thing to do is to simply write "Spoilt" over your ballet paper. Spoilt votes are (in the UK anyway) counted. It would be better for the democratic process if there were a procedure to properly identify a no confidence vote.

The population should have the opportunity of actively telling politicians at an election that they are a bunch of horrible muppets. If all you can do is stay at home then you can just be written off as an apithetic irrelevance.

Who is informed

[cwinfough]

I believe the truly informed examine each of the topics and/or policies that each candidate stands for and represents and votes accordingly. With that said, those who vote purely democrat or purely republican are they informed or do they just vote that way because they are "republican" or "democrat" without looking at the agendas or information about the candidates.

An uninformed vote is STILL a vote that YOU cast!

[wooshoofoo]

I would like to mention the Wisdom of Crowds as a cautionary note. The point there is that a crowd of dummies can, in some cases, be smarter than an expert. There is a Chinese proverb, roughly translated as "three stinky (stupid) shoemakers is better than one Zhuge Liang (an epitome of brilliance)", that roughly means the same. But that's not really what's important. What IS important is that, at the risk of noting the obvious, remember that ANY vote you cast means you are now represented in the vast demographic profile oceans. That's one more 24-year-old Asian taxi driver in Queens that the politicians now are interested in catering to. (If you are a 24-year-old Asian taxi driver in Queens, that is.) Asians, taxi drivers, 24-year-olds, and Queens dwellers all benefit from your vote, even if you voted "uninformed." By speaking up, you are speaking up for the many many others who are like you in some small way, and making them count. In that perspective, an uninformed vote certainly IS better than no vote at all.

Re:Let me answer your question with this statement

[Anonymous Coward]

Theres nothing to look about it. You rather vote for a scientist view or a bible thumper who wants lets people die if they get sick. Simple. Go the scientist way.

A great many votes are uninformed

[Aceticon]

To be more precise a great many votes are cast by people which, out of an emotional bond akin to clubism or fanboy-ism, always vote for the same party.

This is the kind of people which staunchly defend their "club", but which, beyond the usual slogans and a couple of examples of their "club" doing good, lack a strong, well structured, consistent logical fundation for why their "club" is so much beter than all others.

In my view, these people are the bane of any informed democracy.

If you care...

[Yrd]

If you care enough to worry about an uninformed vote being bad, why haven't you taken steps to become informed? As a citizen of a democracy, you have the responsibility to do at least cursory research to help you choose who to vote for as your future leaders. It doesn't take long, and it's surely worth some of your time in order to allow you to be confident that you're voting for the right person?

Do your informed neighbors share your interests?

[Mr2001]

The problem with this philosophy is it assumes everyone's interests are the same, that there is one "best" candidate and if you aren't informed enough to know who he is, you should stay home and let the informed people vote for him. (Or, rather, it assumes that the pool of uninformed voters has the same overall interests as the pool of informed voters.)

But that isn't necessarily true. Suppose uninformed voters tend to have some characteristic that separates them from the general population. For the sake of argument, let's say uninformed voters tend to be younger and poorer than informed voters. Clearly, younger and poorer people will have a different set of interests than older and wealthier people, and policies that benefit one group might harm the other. A young, poor, uninformed voter who decides to stay home and let someone more informed make the decision for him may be handing his vote over to a policy that will harm him, whereas even if he went to the polls himself and just picked a candidate randomly, he might have a better chance of casting it for someone whose interests are more closely aligned with his own.

Smacks of Prejudice

[EXTomar]

Is a voter "uninformed" if they "vote for the wrong things/people"? Who determins what these "wrong things" are? Is it when one votes against their pet party or isuse? Are they still bad voters if they vote with them? That is hardly a compelling reason to think someone is uninformed.

Democracy works better the more people you have participate not less. I don't know why there is this desire to limit the number of people who vote in very tight races. It seems that at the moment, the people who go through the voting process do so because they want to (more accurately they do it because they are mad or have an axe to grind). It is rare that some goofball on a whim registers and votes in a random manner.

Besides, even if the electorate is full of idiots voting randomly on things they shouldn't, it is probably spread evenly on both sides of these issues. Trying to make the case that we need to "weed out the bad voters" smacks of prejudice because there is the implication that they are all voting for the wrong things by subjective measure of the complainer. The way to fix "uninformed voters" is to give more information to more voters, not try to disallow them.

So here's a puzzle

[hndrcks]

Since Greg Mankiw believes uninformed is worse than not at all, I wonder what he would make of GOP efforts to intentionally dis-inform prospective voters.

It's Sad Really

[sweatyboatman]

Jeez. Use the inter-web to find out information about the candidates in your area. This should take 5 minutes. Now... vote!

What's that? You want to be even more informed than what you can get in 5 minutes? Well, now that's a different question: "Ask Slashdot: How Much Information Is Required For Me To Make An Informed Vote?" (The answer to that question is either none or infinity.)

You cannot accurately predict the future behavior of the people you vote for. Many 'informed' voters voted for Bush last time and now regret it (and think of all those Democratic primary voters who voted for Kerry). The candidates you are voting for are actually - gasp - real people. And there's an incredibly high likelihood that once they're elected they'll change their positions on any number of important (to you) issues. And using past life experience to predict future behavior in office is no guarantee either (Ahem... McCain v. Torture)

If you don't feel like searching the web. Just go and vote. It'll just take a minute. And at the very least, if you go through the process of voting now, next time there's an election you may remember this point in your life and try a little harder to be prepared.

Bar the uninformed

[RageOfReason]

Democracy has one fundamental flaw - the average voter is an utter moron. However I take the Winston Churchill line - Democracy is the worst form of government except all the others.

It's ridiculous, you spend hours reading and reflecting on the issues, you balance the pros and cons and take an weighted aggregate view in deciding which way to vote. And what happens on polling day? The cretin behind you in the line cancels out all your efforts by voting for X because X's party was the one to make the last minute robocall he received.

So, to improve matters, would it be possible to construct a test to determine if a voter is sufficiently well versed with the issues to make a rational, informed, decision? If one is too lazy or too thick to understand the issues it would be better to bar that person from voting.

I don't see a moral objection to this, only a practical one; how to formulate such a test. What is dubious is excluding felons from voting. Why? Don't they live in the country?

Re: 3rd Party - Libertarian - send a message!

[transporter_ii]

If you know a person is good, vote for him regardless of which party he or she is in. If you don't know, vote Libertarian. If there is no Libertarian, don't vote (or vote for another third party on the ballot with which you agree, if there is one).

The country goes the same direction no matter which party is in control. As it is sometimes said, both parties are running a train toward a cliff, it is just that one party wants to go off the cliff a litter faster than the other party. I don't want to go off the cliff fast or slow, so I'm not going to vote for either one of them (unless there is someone really good running, like a Ron Paul Republican).

However, a vote for a third party, such as the Libertarians, sends a much more powerful message than not voting.

Transporter_ii

Tags are not comments, people!

[spun]

Can we stop tagging stories "yes" and "no?" There's a better word: maybe. Besides that, who the hell is going to search for "yes" or "no." For crying out loud, Slashdot gives us a great new tool, says, "Use it however you like," and this is the best we can do?

Yes, you can go ahead and mod me off topic. Or mod me up for saying you can mod me offtopic. Or mod me down for admitting that I only said "mod me off topic" in order to get the sympathy mods. I really don't care, but I like it when people are happy, so go ahead and mod me however is going to make you happy.

Just don't fricken' tag every single story, "yes, no, fud, notfud, itsatrap," m'kay?

Re:Tags are not comments, people!

[Stanistani]

...but it would just be great if we could tag the candidates and ballot issues when we vote!

"With 45% of the precincts accounted for, Representative Anderson is not only trailing by 10,000 votes, but has been tagged as an 'idiot'. Proposition 199 is winning the day by 2%, but a significant number of voters tagged the measure as 'itsatrap'."

Re:Tags are not comments, people!

[JazzLad]

FWIIW, I completely agree with you. Some tags are worthless.

Re:Tags are not comments, people!

[Foolhardy]

Yeah, they allow those useless tags but block some of the more meaningful (but anti slashdot revenue) tags like "slashvertisement" (for example); there really are some articles that are little more than product ads. If the tag was applied consistently and I had the option to hide those stories, I'd consider using it. Anyways, since they've already started the precedent of blocking certain tags, it'd make sense to add these useless ones to the list.

I think the only way to fix it would be to have a meta-tag system like the post moderation system. At least then, it would take a conspiracy of randomly selected users to get bad tags attached.

That and getting some good tags started.

Voting is not a duty

[hlh_nospam]

You do not have a 'duty' to vote. It is a *privilege*. If you don't know who you want to vote for, you should stay home and let me run your government for you.

Re:Voting is not a duty

[Control Group]

You do not have a 'duty' to vote. It is a *right*. If you don't know who you want to vote for, you should stay home and let me run your government for you.

There. Fixed that for you.

My method

[bb5ch39t]

When I am unsure, I simply find somebody that I know is a fool. And vote the opposite. Maybe not the best, but it does undo his vote.

Real bright

[Tony]

"Sometimes...the most responsible thing a person can do on election day is stay at home ... If you really don't know enough to cast an intelligent vote, you should be eager to let your more informed neighbors make the decision."

"Intelligent" and "democracy" are orthogonal. You know how dumb the average American is? By definition, half are dumber. (Yeah, I know the difference between mean and median. It's a joke, and doesn't go over well with half of America if you use median. They just look at you and say, "Huh?")

Anyway.

Most people who vote are *mis*informed. It's taken me most of my adult life to realize this, but you know how we were taught be to truthful and honest when we were young? It seems politicians and businessmen learned exactly the opposite. Misdirection, misinformation, and complete falsehoods beat honesty in both business and politics.

So, I'd say your ignorance is an advantage. I half-seriously believe we'd be better off picking the person with the cooler name, something that leaves the voter completely ignorant of who it is they are voting for. It'd certainly beat the misinformation we currently vote on.

"Kerry is a flip-flopper!"
"Bush is a tiny-dicked moron who used his daddy's influence to skip out of Vietnam!" (Well, he *does* have a tiny dick, but I don't know about the rest of it.)
"Dean yells like a sissy-girl!"
"Nader is a silly wank who would sell this country to Columbia for sixteen ounces of pure cocaine!"

And so on.

The truth is, we should select our leaders the same way we vote for American Idols, or whichever show allows people to vote. However that goes. I've never watched any of them, so I don't know how it's done. I hated it when they voted off Stevie Scott, though-- she was hot. But we could have that cool British guy telling them, "You have no talent. Your singing is for crap, and you haven't clipped your nostril hairs. Good-bye."

Or whatever.

Truly. We are the least-politically-educated country in the world, after Britain. I've met people in Thailand who knew more about our politics than any American.

Don't let your ignorance stop you, Man. Vote! And soon!

And just remember, vote Fascist. Don't worry, that'll be your only choice.

Re:Real bright

[Control Group]

Yeah, I know the difference between mean and median. It's a joke, and doesn't go over well with half of America if you use median

Strictly speaking, for a sample size of three hundred million, one would expect the mean and the median to be essentially indistinguishable.

Re:Real bright

[DragonWriter]

Strictly speaking, for a sample size of three hundred million, one would expect the mean and the median to be essentially indistinguishable.

Rather, you'd expect with that large of a sample for the sample mean and the sample median to closely match the population mean and population median in most cases.

Only if the population mean and median were in fact indistinguishable (say, whatever value was being measured was normally distributed) would you expect that to be the case of the sample mean and sample median.

Re:Real bright

[Control Group]

Only if the population mean and median were in fact indistinguishable (say, whatever value was being measured was normally distributed)

For the sake of brevity (soul of wit, and all that), I did commit two errors:

1) I used the term "sample" instead of the correct term "population" to imply that my comment was statistical, rather than referring to the "population" and risking confusion between the statistical meaning of the word and the idiomatic "population of this country" meaning.

2) I was also making an unstated assumption that IQ is distributed normally across the population of the United States.

You are, of course, correct in your statements.

Agreed, For the love of God, don't vote.

[Aqua OS X]

Please don't go to the polls and pick D's and R's simply because they're D's and R's. Moreover, spare us votes based on slim ideologies, assumptions, and or dumb talking points that get paraded around.

That said, you SHOULD vote. (wha?) For Christ's sake, you're posting to Slashdot. That tells me that you, at the very least, know how to use a computer and have some rudimentary capability of comprehending geeky logic. You're more then capable of researching candidates and propositions.

Don't you care about war, poverty, disenfranchisement, famine, disease? We could be developing solutions to these problems at a much faster rate if the electorate would get off their asses and DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. And that something isn't much... at the very least read Wikipedia and get an absentee ballot.

WAKE UP!

VOTE.

Re:Agreed, For the love of God, don't vote.

[Swift2001]

Oh, I will vote, in this election, straight D, and I don't care who knows it. I'm not voting in all cases for the man, but for the party, because that's the way the game is played. It's all binary in these United States. Don't like it? Change the electoral laws. Join campaigns to allow multiple votes on a single ballot -- first choice, second choice, first candidate to go over 50% wins -- or public financing, free time on channels in formats of at least five minutes, pass laws requiring TV stations to run candidate forums, whatever. But until the day when elections are structured so that raising money isn't the be-all and end-all, you have to vote strategically. Although, as long as the GOP is being run by its current scurrilous ideologues, they're not getting a single vote from me.

Re:Agreed, For the love of God, don't vote.

[PieSquared]

I can't vote until next year, but I pretty much agree. In most cases, what the candidate says is totally irrelevant to what they will do. Nearly everyone toes the party line, when it comes to important issues.

At this point the choice isn't even Democrat or Republican, it's NeoCon or Moderate. I'd like to see a balanced budget, and as an engineer I'm not going to be in the bottom tax bracket... but I wouldn't even consider voting Republican: I'd like to keep a few rights.

Re:Agreed, For the love of God, don't vote.

[Moofie]

"have some rudimentary capability of comprehending geeky logic"

Truly. And, as such, it is not possible for such a person of intellect and consceince vote without detecting the stink of politics.

Re:Agreed, For the love of God, don't vote.

[Anonymous Coward]

You should try living in a one-party state like Massachusetts. I voted for (R) when possible, but that was only 5 out of 16 positions. In the rest, the Democrat was either running entirely unopposed, or else was only opposed by a fringe third party (Green-Rainbow Party, Working Family Party,and Socialist Workers Party). I don't like the fringe parties (though the Greens are not too bad) but I vote for them anyway.

It's pretty well known that none of the Republicans or third party candidates on my ballot have much of a chance of winning. The closest was the race for governor, in which Deval Patrick (D) has been polling at a 55-30 lead over Kerry Healey (R).

The Republican party in Massachusetts is not totally nonexistent, yet. In some parts of Western Mass. they do send Republicans to the state legislature. But on the whole, it's pretty much a one-party state.

This might sound great if you don't like Republicans, but for the government to be so completely dominated by one party is really very bad for democracy. It means that the only effective voter input comes during the Democratic primary, but most voters are not registered as Democrats, and most of them do not vote in the primary, and most that do vote in the primary vote for the incumbent or the party's anointed candidate. Getting elected to statewide office is all about knowing the right people and voting the way they want, and so it's mostly just machine politics here.

Sometimes I am really tempted not to vote at all. But failure to vote isn't perceived as a protest, but as a sign of ambivalence. Hence my vote for anyone-but-the-Democrats.

Im going to get modded to hell for this

[Lanoitarus]

...but why vote at all? (I don't think i personally agree with this article, but I definitely found it mathematically sound, and a very interesting arguement. Just at least read it before you mod me "-1, unamerican".)

Not necessarily

[benhocking]

If truly random, then the expected deviation from the expected mean varies as the square root of N (with N being the number of random votes). That is, although the expected proportion is 50%, the expected deviation from that proportion is significantly non-zero. If I flip a coin 1,000,000 times, I can't tell you whether there will be more heads than tails, but I can tell you with a fairly high degree of certainty that the number of heads will not be between (for example) 499,900 and 500,100. Specifically, the variance would be expected to be n*p*(1-p) or 250,000, meaning the standard deviation would be expected to be 500, so there's only about a 16% chance of the actual number of coin flips being between 499,900 and 500,100 (if I've done my math correctly).

Re:Not necessarily

[Fengpost]

Conversely, there are a lot intelligent people out there considers themselves informed on the issue and condidates, but in reality they are not. Just simply they do not have time to do the research, they are influenced by the source of their information (media)and their own views.

So, the true danger lies within the flase acknowledgement of their own understanding on the election in question.

Re:Not necessarily

[Jim_Callahan]

Yeah, but while the clout of random voting increases with the square of population, the clout of carefully considered voting (assuming it's a given portion of the population and divides them at a given ratio) scales linearly: x% vote with research and this results in y% of them voting for a and z% voting for b, you have n*.01x*.01(y-z) portion in favor of a. So the total vote comes out to
 
n*(considered constant) - sqrt(n)*(random deviation constant)
 
    Note that for a huge n like what you deal with in elections, the portion of the population that considers carefully has to be either really, really tiny or really, really evenly divided (y = z) for the deviation term to not disappear entirely. So, in other words, the only two situations in which deviance is mathematically significant are when the population that votes carefully is small (i.e. the election was left up to chance to begin with), or the caring electors were evenly divided (i.e. neither option is obviously inferior, and the election might as well be left to chance). In conclusion, you're imagining a problem where there isn't one.
 
P.S. Yes, I know that elections have been this close before. Note my remark about 'neither option is obviously inferior'... if you can't assume that the reasonable electors have some valid system of evaluation, then the whole system should die anyway.
 
p.p.s. I expect some damn 'insightful' points for this, kids. Normally i get paid 18$/hour to explain basic math to people.

Every Vote Is An Uninformed Vote

[dkarma]

No one can truly know what is going on up on capital hill.
Most of the time there is little knowledge of what the candidate is truly like
even on the local level.
What they purport to stand for in the public eye however is not always what their true self belies. (read: Mark Foley, Abramoff etc etc...)

Regardless of the reasoning VOTE because it is the ONLY say you have in this government...and a shaky one at that.

Don't Vote

[huskerman3015]

Hey man, if you know nothing about candidates, and don't care that much on the issues, don't vote. If politics, war, the economy, law, taxes, government regulation, or life means nothing then I'll excuse your absence from the ballot box. I don't keep up on American Idol, so I don't vote on who wins that moronic show, and whatever happens in it I don't complain or care about. If you have a similar stance on politics and government, go for it. If you do care and are too lazy to take an hour to get caught up on the issues and go vote, you should lose your right to vote.

Uninformed voters

[pluther]

I wish all uninformed voters would skip voting. (Er, I guess that would make them uninformed non-voters, then?) Anyway, yeah, if you have no idea what you're voting for, why bother? So you input random factors into the election, which will join with the rest of the "noise" from people who don't mark their ballots properly, or accidently vote for the wrong candidate, or what-not.

Of course, just by the fact that you realize you're uninformed puts you ahead of all the people who believe themselves informed by virtue of watching the political ads that show up during their favorite sitcoms.

Now, although I don't think not voting, or voting randomly, will make any difference, you might want to do what other responders have suggested: vote third-party down the ticket. I'd love to see both the Libertarians and the Greens get some candidates into congress.

Don't vote, ignoramus

[Anonymous Coward]

That is why our founding fathers set up our educational system.

Sounds like you shouldn't be voting.

Try Getting Educated You Moron

[spiedrazer]

It takes like 15 minutes per candidtae or issue to get educated enough to make an informed voting decision, so try pulling yourself away from Halo long enough to participate in a process many people have died to bring you.

Also, anyone who says your vote has no effect doesn't understand group and mob dynamics. If your peers all get invloved, which has a cascading effect, you can certainly effect the outcome of elections n your region, and the balance of congress will certainly impact how much of George's aganda is acted on in his lame duck years.

So... get your head out of your butt and go vote!

So, you think you're worse

[hey!]

than all those people who think they know what's going on but are completely wrong?

Get informed in Mass

[kcurtis]

I'm sure there are similar sites for other states, but one of our NPR stations has a web tool where you choose your position on the issues and it tells you which candidate is your best choice according to those issues.

http://www.votebyissue.org/election2006/

With all of the internet resources you have at your beck and call (you took the time to post a question to slashdot, but can't take 5 minutes to get informed?) you have NO EXCUSE.

GET INFORMED. VOTE. This year especially you have a chance to be a voice for change, or a voice for staying the path. These things matter.

Would you prefer death by hanging or shooting?

[pitc]

Both options are bad. The question "which is more bad" is a waste of time. You have a civic responsibility to vote and to vote intelligently. Go do it.

Read this paper

[epsalon]

Read this academic paper titled: Voter Participation and Strategic Uncertainty. In short, the answer it's sometimes better not to vote (or to throw a die in order to decide whether or not to vote).

Cowboy Neil

[tsunamiiii]

For all unopposed people running in MA I wrote in Cowboy Neil as my write in Candidate. Please help us and vote against Ted Kennedy...

Qualified voting

[ericlondaits]

The thing is... where do you draw the line on what being "uninformed" means?

At the very least you would know if you're voting mostly for or somewhat against the current administration, and I assume you have some sort of opinion about the current administration. It'd be an informed vote, then. Of sorts.

You don't need to know medicine to choose a doctor. You try to get one you can trust.

no such thing

[illegalcortex]

While you (not necessarily the submitter but any voter) may be an "uninformed" voter, there's very little likelyhood that you have heard none of the advertising. Therefore, you will have a slight bias towards voting for the candidate with the most advertising money. You may also tend to be biased towards the incumbent. And usually, the two are the same candidate.

So I would say if the only information you have is from advertisements then you should not vote.

seriously

[hamburger lady]

how hard is it to inform yourself about a handful of candidates? you can do it in an afternoon if you want.

find out who's on the ballot, see where they stand on local, state and national issues. jesus, it's not like you have to root through piles of old newspapers at the library or anything, you can do it from the comfort of your desk.

i mean, i know that there's 'informed' and there's informed but i'll never understand this attitude of blank-eyed ignorance people have about the people who write and interpret the laws in this country. how can you not, on the most basic level, care about the people who exert control over your life and the state/country?

Bad dog! No cookie!

[Rocky Mudbutt]

I don't vote, it only encourages them.

Reads a bit elitist to me

[Alfthemack]

/* Warning Soapbox starting now
Is it my imagination, or does this all read as quite a bit elitist saying that if one isn't completely informed to just stay home? I doubt that anyone can absorb the full voting record of any elected representative. Moreover, there is no way anyone can 100% predict which way an official will vote in the future. (Party affiliations and platforms serve as a guidelines not absolute rules!)

I live in Texas. We can vote straight Democratic, straight Republican or straight Libertarian with one mark. There's not even guesswork involved. If one's fairly liberal, conservative, etc., he or she could show up and do that--no mess no fuss.

Honestly, the WORST thing you can do is not vote, since that shows that you don't give a damn about how you are governed or the sacrifices that those before you made to enable your enfranchisement. (If you're part of the 0.25% of Americans that have ALWAYS been rich, white males from prosperous families, then the previous sentence does not apply to you.)

If you live in a state (e.g., Minnesota) where they show the incumbent candidates on the ballot, you can vote for or against the status quo.

A quick online scan of the local paper or a Googling of the candidates will show positions, platforms, etc.

Taxes? There aren't just candidates on the ballots, but referendums, propositions, proposed (state) constitutional amendments that are (sometimes) written in plain English asking do voters if they want to allow the state or local government to raise taxes $0.02/gallon at the pump, $50/yr for a $200K house or 0.5% on every non-food, non-clothing purchase made. One does not have to be informed about a political platform/candidate to say, "No, I don't want to pay more for gas to hire more police!"

I know a guy that told me that he voted against every proposition on the Austin ballot. One of those was for a new library. I asked him what he had against books. He said nothing--he just didn't want to pay more for it. He knew nothing about the propositions, but he knew he didn't want to pay higher property taxes.

Anyone able to vote should vote not just out of civic duty but to show that they informed that they have the right to do so. Those that don't vote simply show that they don't want the right (or responsibility) to do so.

Ending soapbox */

Question: only one candidate

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm planning to vote later today and on our list for "Member of the Assembly" I see only one candidate, who's listed as a candidate for both Republican and Democratic parties. There are no other candidates.

Question: How do I NOT vote for this person?

We should do thing with a lot of thought.

[pizzach]

I based my vote on whoever had the most interesting commercial during the super bowl.

Incidentally, next time I am going to base on my vote on the measured direction and strength of the wind, the phase of the moon and my favorite color. Inputting the values into a a nice little gui program I found. (It's a b$tch collecting the values and some times I lie for the fun of it anyway.) The program uses the values to make a generated seed for a random number generator which then links to the candidate I didn't know I want. For the indecisive, this would be a godsend to have on the electronic voting machines.

You'll Never Completely Agree

[dptalia]

With all the candidates. So I choose the candidate who can do the least harm - which is always the LIbertarian. Anyone who wants less laws and regulations will win my vote even when I vehmently dissagree with his other positions.

It's not about all or nothing...

[MrPerfekt]

Really, this view that I must find a candidate that I agree with on every single issue or I won't vote is silly. In todays complex world, it's utterly impossible to do it. There will always be a number of issues that candidate X has a differing (slightly or majorly) view on. The point is to find a candidate that fits you -best-. This may be difficult considering that many politicians are out of touch with society but it's your duty to put forth an effort.

Many people that don't follow politics cite the fact that many politicians appear the same to them. This is true to a degree that all politicians seem to act the same. They all protect their interests and try to go about their business pandering to their "base" but their views on major things like economics, abortion, war, free speech, etc. separate them like night and day.

I can't fathom how people can be conservative just how some people can't fathom how I could be so liberal. To me it was always a natural choice. If it's not to you, then you're probably just not paying enough attention. Still, ignorance is not an excuse. Pay attention to politics. As frustrating as it is, it's vitally important to your, your nation's and the world's future.

I could also get into a long rant about slant and corruption in the media but that's an auxiliary concern to this point. The same thing goes as with anything, get your news from multiple sources and don't give any single thing too much weight.

Re:If you are asking this question you have failed

[Anonymous Coward]

When I find out somebody hasn't voted I shame them for it. Every chance I get. I don't care if that makes them upset or mad because somebody who is too uninformed and lazy to vote is not worth being friends with.

There's issues to vote for.

[Darth Muffin]

Your locale probably has some issues on the ballot to vote for, it's not just politicians. The issues are generally pretty easy to understand and put forth as such on the ballot. Then either just don't vote for the rest of the ballot, or just vote for the one or two candidates you do know of, or submit a protest vote--such as voting for only non-Democratic and non-Republican candidates. They don't seriously stand a chance, but you can let the politicians know you want another alternative.

Slightly totally uninformed?

[kalidasa]

I don't pay attention to politics at all [....] I have slightly conservative views[,] which agrees with their political outlook [....] I am totally uninformed, I shouldn't vote.

Now if only the other 20 million Americans who hold slightly conservative views because they don't pay attention to politics at all, agree with their parents' political viewpoints because they are their parents' political viewpoints, and are totally uninformed did the same thing and refrained from voting, this country would be in much better shape.

The problem is not just that you're not voting - it's that you don't pay the least bit of attention to one of the most important aspects of living in a society. I hope you never complain about the government, etc.

Don't blame me....

[limabone]

....I voted for Kodos!

OK, But...

[Greyfox]

You don't get to complain about anything political later on. I'm seriously here, you don't vote, you give up your right to complain.

Anyway, how informed do you really have to be? You could just have an opinion -- "The current guys are doing a shitty job! I'm voting them all out!" or "The current guys are doing a great job! I'll vote to keep them!" If you can manage to have that much of an opinion then you should be able to get motivated enough to go do something about it.

By not voting you're just giving my vote that much more weight, and I advocate bringing back impaling and banning all organized religion except for a mandatory state-sponsored one involving Smurfs. But remember, you don't get to complain!

Re:OK, But...

[Anonymous Coward]

So I forfeit my citizenship if I don't vote? That's.. umm.. interesting.

Re:Let me answer your question with this statement

[Lord Ender]

The people smart enough to consider this question are probably more intelligent than 85% of those who actually will vote. Therefore, not voting because you don't think you are informed enough results in fewer votes by smart people. It puts more power in the hands of the stupid.

Re:Get Informed - CAST YOUR BALLOT

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Cast your ballot!

AKA - let yourself be counted, as someone with a voice.

You do not need to cast a vote on every single ballot item. Many propositions are so confusing and complex, they seem to mock the notion of being adequately informed. Or you might not like any of the candidates for a certain office - you do not need to vote for the least of evils. There is a difference between indifference (not going to vote) and disatisfaction (not voting on some issues).

2. Sometimes it makes sense (to me) to vote for a candidate from your "favorite" political party, even if you are not informed as to their particular traits. This depends of course on the particular race in question.

Scott Adams blogged about this

[kalirion]

Scott Adams made a blog entry regarding the whole "civic duty to vote" business. His view is that the only reason people have that opinion is because it has been drilled into their heads from an early age.

Don't blame me, I voted for Turd Sandwich.

Klein misses the point

[Sapphon]

But it's not rational for the country's non-voters to expect that voters' engagement in the political process will necessarily bring about a better outcome for them.

No, it's not. But it's also not rational to expect that going to the polls and voting with little to no idea about the issues will bring about a better outcome for you.

To use Klein's example of a minimum wage increase for low-paid workers: One candidate supports it, and the other doesn't. How will the lowly paid workers (who are assumed to be less educated, and therefore uninformed about the issues) know which one to pick? They don't, and end up with a 50/50 chance of voting against their own interests*. Mankiw's (or rather, Feddersen and Pesendorfer's) point is that the uninformed should choose not to vote because "the outcome will be more reliable without their participation. By not voting, they are doing themselves and everyone else a favor. If the ill-informed were all induced to vote, they would merely add random noise to the outcome." (From Mankiw's blog).

The nub of the difference between the two articles seems to be that Klein doesn't trust the educated to make decisions on behalf of the less educated, because she assumes they will have conflicting interests and that self-interest will prevail^, whereas Mankiw/Feddersen/Pesendorfer.. . don't address the issue (at least not in the blog).

It could be argued that with higher education comes a more developed sense of moral responsiblity, and that thus the higher educated (informed) voters will try and do what's best for the nation, not simply for them.^^ Or maybe the point of the study/blog was to push education, with bettering democracy as a goal.

The orginal question asked by the submitter can be simplistically answered by asking: Do you trust your fellow citizens to decide your future (on a political scale)? If yes, then you don't need to vote. If no, then you should inform yourself and go vote.

If you don't trust your fellow citizens, but haven't informed yourself, then (personally) I reckon you should stay at home. I consider it a civic duty to be involved in the democratic process, but not if you're going to screw it up because you're choosing the most photogenic candidate.

*One could argue that, since the educated (and in this simplified example, rich/store owners) are likely to vote against the workers interests, a 50/50 split of votes from the latter would lead to a better ratio of support for their issues, but anyone who thinks in terms of statistics like that isn't in the uneducated category

^Which is entirely consistent within the economic framework of the orgininal article/study
^^Which would break the economic assumption of self-interest

be eager to let your more informed neighbors...

[chrislehr]

herein lies the problem. Not all of our neighbors are more informed. Honestly, too many Americans won't admit their lack of knowledge readily.

Misinformed is not the same as Uninformed

[ScentCone]

I think there are far more - in practical terms - misinformed people (across the entire idealogical spectrum) than there are uninformed people. Meaning, even from many of those that are truly uninformed about most of the nuances of some subject or basket of local iniatives, there is still a ready answer about which candidate or party that they are absolutely sure hates them personally, wants their babies to die, etc. This is generally not true. This usually comes down to which media outlets get the most access to their brains, and which group of peers provide the immersion in one prevailing notion or another.

When it's socially comfortable to be non-critical in digesting and wearing a preference for one camp or the other, folks feel informed enough to make a vote one way or the other, no question - but would have a very hard time credibly defending their decision when actually having to sift through the facts. I think this is a basic pack-animal thing, and applies across the board for most people who don't spend too much time wonking their way into the depths of each candidate and topic. But that never stops a good argument, or vote.

Your money, your vote

[Hap76]

1) You'll pay for whatever you government does, whether you agree with it or not. There isn't a box on the 1040 absolving you from paying taxes if you don't vote, nor one on the state forms either.

2) You may not know enough, but you may know more than lots of people who do vote; you could be really smart and be more highly aware of the limits of your knowledge than others, while some will be unware of their lack of knowledge and so be confident of their ability to vote.

Vote for what you think is best. In the long run, you would be served better by learning enough to feel comfortable with your vote - whoever is elected will be taking your money whether or not you vote for them.

Everybody's hung up on candidates

[PCM2]

Not only what the parent said, but everybody always wants to talk about which candidate to vote for. If you don't feel confident voting for any of the candidates on your ballot -- and you really don't think you're affiliated with any party, including the Green party, Libertarians, what-have-you -- then you can always leave those boxes blank, if your conscience just won't let you pick one.

Nonetheless, there are lots of other things on the ballot you might be interested in voting for. Are you really, really, really against cigarette taxes? You might want to show up at the polls. Do you think that bond measures are just borrowing money we don't have, and you don't want to float any more bonds for your local schools? You might have an opinion on that, and the information on the ballot is going to be pretty straightforward. Do you think immigrants are great for America and all the crying about how they steal our jobs is hogwash? You might want to see what kind of things your legislators have proposed in the name of tightening up the borders. People have opinions, and the elections give you the opportunity to vote not just on candidates but on specific bills and measures that affect your local community.

My gut feeling, of course, is that the statement "I don't pay any attention to politics" is a total cop-out. Do you not watch the news? Do you have absolutely no idea about what's going on in the world and no opinions about it, either? I have a hard time buying this. There's a certain little voice in my gut that thinks that "I don't pay attention to politics" is tantamount to saying "I am a lazy couch potato with no sense of ethics or civic duty, who's totally happy with the status quo because I'm too self centered to ever be involved with my community or care what happens to it."

Re:Everybody's hung up on candidates

[c0d3h4x0r]

My gut feeling, of course, is that the statement "I don't pay any attention to politics" is a total cop-out. Do you not watch the news? Do you have absolutely no idea about what's going on in the world and no opinions about it, either? I have a hard time buying this. There's a certain little voice in my gut that thinks that "I don't pay attention to politics" is tantamount to saying "I am a lazy couch potato with no sense of ethics or civic duty, who's totally happy with the status quo because I'm too self centered to ever be involved with my community or care what happens to it."

You must not know very many people. I know plenty of people who are completely caught up in their own lives and have no sense of civic duty. They never watch the news, read a newspaper, or go to news sites online. They can't identify the names or faces of very recognizable political figures (such as the current vice president). They don't know anything about current events or issues, not even the fluff stuff: the vice president shot someone? really? who is the vice president again? stem cell research? are those cells from the stem of a plant? won't all the plants die because of that thing al gore invented? what was it called... global warming, that's it.

And the really scary part is that these are the people who most buy into the "rock the vote" nonsense and go out and vote on things and people they know absolutely nothing about. It's like telling retarded people they need to become gun owners, helping them make it happen, and then turning them loose in the forest, without them really understanding why they are doing it or what they are doing.

Re:Everybody's hung up on candidates

[ceoyoyo]

Forget "do you not watch the news."

I don't pay attention to politics is a cop out, plain and simple. It's your one responsibility for all the privileges that come from living in a democracy. You don't have to watch the legislature debate channel (do you guys have those in the US?) but you should definitely take the time to figure out who to vote for at election time.

Re:Everybody's hung up on candidates

[PCM2]

You don't have to watch the legislature debate channel (do you guys have those in the US?)

Yes, it is called C-SPAN here.

Re:Everybody's hung up on candidates

[Johnny5000]

You don't have to watch the legislature debate channel (do you guys have those in the US?)

Yeah, CSPAN and CSPAN2.
The best part is watching people give passionate speeches to nearly empty rooms.

Analogy time

[benhocking]

I don't get this "lesser of two evils" thing. I don't want to choose the lesser of two evils. If someone ties you down to a chair and asks me if I prefer to be beaten with the steel or metal bat, I answer that I prefer to be let go without harm.

Instead of choosing between steel or "metal" bats, let's make the analogy closer to how many voters really feel. You've got the choice between being hit (very hard) with a bat, or being slapped (very hard) on the face. You have the option not to choose, but if you don't choose, they'll let someone else decide. What do you do then?

Having said that, I've got no problem with voting for a 3rd party candidate - just make sure it's an informed decision within the context of our voting system. Not voting, however? That's just letting someone else choose how to abuse you.

Re:Analogy time

[Nos.]

Using your analogy though, you're still asking to be hit in the face. At least if I refrain from choosing, I have some right to say, "I did not (want|ask for) this. You on the other hand, can't do much other than rub your face where it hurts.

Re:Analogy time

[AKAImBatman]

You have three choices:

- Get hit with a metal bat
- Get hit with a backhand slap
- Find a way to turn the tables and escape

In voting, you have three options:

- Choose Candidate A
- Choose Candidate B
- Run For Office

The reason why the options are so unappealing is because the population regularly misses that last item there.

Re:Analogy time

[LunaticTippy]

I thought about running for office, just to give the press a field day with my drug use, sexual habits, and freakish manner. Most normal people don't want this kind of mean-spirited scrutiny. They might have family or churches they go to that would be hurt by dirt dug up.

If I had a family or went to a church, no fucking way would I run for office. Nobody has a squeaky-clean past. Even if some weirdo does have a clean bill of moral health, the bastards will make something up. Something believable, with dozens of witnesses, just as soon as the candidacy becomes viable.

Re:Analogy time

[2short]

You're getting hit no matter what; I'm asking not to get hit with a bat. If you refrain from choosing, you choose to let the rest of us choose for you. This being America, both of us can say whatever we bloody well please. In a democracy, the candidates who have a realistic chance of winning may not include any you would pick if it were all up to you. But one is almost certainly better than the other. I've certainly never looked at the candidates for a statewide or higher office and had no opinion which I wanted. Doesn't mean I always liked either of them, but I certainly had a preference.

Re:Analogy time

[wass]

Not voting for Democrats or Republicans in the election is saying what you want to be said. But not voting at all is not saying anything at all, and thereby letting everyone else do the talking for you.

There's a shitload at stake, just look at the madness Bush has done in the past 6 years. If you don't go to the ballot box today, don't complain about the bad bad government in the future.

I can understand if you don't like the Democrats policies. But avoiding the elections entirely just because you don't like the Democratic Party's policies is ridiculously idiotic. In your analogy example it would be like not complaining whatsoever if you're getting hit in the face with a bat.

Re:Analogy time

[Anonymous Coward]

I usually vote for 3rd party candidates, nothing about our system is going to change until we throw all the bums out every election cycle... if they're not going to legislate term limits we'll have to impose them ourselves.

Having said that, Gerrymandering probably makes most of our votes irrelevant.

Re:Analogy time

[Jim_Callahan]

Unfortunately, in the Republican/Democrat case, the "steel vs metal bat" is a more accurate decription of the situation than the "slap vs. bat" one you describe, given the appreciable difference in the scale of damage done by slaves to either party.

Seriously, you seem to be implying that the "steel" and "metal" were some sort of mistake on the GP's part. I'm pretty sure the only person missing the implication of that analogy was you.

Re:Analogy time

[Anonymous Coward]

Using your analogy though, you're still asking to be hit in the face. At least if I refrain from choosing, I have some right to say, "I did not (want|ask for) this. You on the other hand, can't do much other than rub your face where it hurts.

There's a good chance that your brain has been damaged by the blow from the bat and you aren't able to say anything at all. It can make sense to pick the lesser of two evils when one evil is far great than the other. That's the point you seem to be going to absurd lengths to ignore.

Re:Analogy time

[fdiskne1]

Analogy, the word looks like it's the study of...nevermind.

Anyway, since this analogy is already out there, let me give it my best shot. You're voting for either a hard hit with a bat or a slap in the face. Of course you prefer neither so you vote third-party which is to let you go with no harm. The problem is that there are a much larger number of people voting for either the bat or the slap. Setting you free with no harm has virtually no chance of winning. If the bat wins, you're screwed. If the slap wins, you're MUCH better off than the bat.

I agree with what you're saying about why vote for getting hit at all, or why vote for either of the major parties, but when that much harm can come if the other side wins, many people would be hard pressed to not help the lesser of the two evils. Not saying it's right, just the way it is.

Re:Analogy time

[Anonymous Coward]

Rick Mercer Quote Time:

Some people say they aren't going to vote because they're choosing the lesser of [two] evils. Now listen closely folks: When choosing who is going to run your country, it is VERY IMPORTANT to choose the lesser evil.

Re:Analogy time

[guru42101]

This is true... Also the reason we have so many crappy candidates is because we've let them be elected in the past. Vote for the lesser evil and continue to vote for the lesser evil. If enough people do that then the lesser evil will live. Eventually the other side will realize that to win they must be the lesser evil. Thus creating a political Darwinism.

Re:Analogy time

[Anonymous Coward]

What do you do then?

JESUS FUCKING CHRIST, YOU STUPID ASSHOLE! Your web link says you're from Virginia.edu, but god damned you make a piss-poor American.

What do you do? YOU FIGHT BACK! You find a way to tell those goddamned bastards that enough is enough, and you find a way to HIT THEM BACK.

You REFUSE, you RESIST, you REBEL, and you RETALIATE. Escape from the clutches that bind you and then respond in kind.

God damn, you're a fucking pussy. Demand some fucking respect every now and then, Jesus.

Re:Analogy time

[Wes Janson]

No, the real reason the options are so unappealing is because running for office REQUIRES the person to already be a multi-millionaire with political connections, good presentability, moderately clean record (or good cover-up) and a good campaign staff. Amongst other things. I don't know about you, but most of the populace doesn't meet more than one or two of those qualifications, especially in regards to federal office. Sure, you can try to get your name stuck on a the ballot, so you can go around telling people you actually ran for office, but you're not going to have a snowball's chance in hell without the right support. And that leads you back to the first question: what difference does it make?

But beware dilution!

[EmbeddedJanitor]

OK, I'm not a US citizen and not fully familiar with the US voting system, but "voting for anybody but Republican" is not a good strategy.

Lets say that 40% of voters choose Republican and that there are two other parties and that non-Republicans just randomly vote for a non-Republican party. You'll end up with Republican 40 %, Party A 30 % and Party B 30%. IIRC, that means Republican will win. However, if, instead, people just voted Republican or Party A, then Party A would get 60% of the vote.

It is largely this concern with dilution that has driven the USA, and many others, to become effectively a two-party system. To get effective voting that works for minor parties you need proportional representation rather than first past the post.

Re:But beware dilution!

[carlivar]

Actually I said Republicrat, a combination of the names of the two largest parties (Republican/Democrat).

So what I mean is, give the two major parties something to worry about (and respect), not to mention more votes allow 3rd parties to get on the ballot easier. That's a good thing.

I don't expect third parties to start winning instantly but I would LOVE to see something like:

Major Party 1 40%
Major Party 2 35%
Third Party 1 15%
Third Party 2 10%

That may not put third parties in office but at least it would force the major parties to think a bit more about what 3rd parties are saying and why people are voting that way.

Re:But beware dilution!

[TheRaven64]

Not to mention the fact that, if enough people vote that way, a lot of people are likely to see Third Party 1 as having a chance next election, and so you might end up with a 35/30/25/10 split.

In the UK, we have a 2.5 party system; two parties that stand a chance of winning more than 50% of the seats, and one that has a chance of winning enough seats to be able to influence policy. We have had something close to a two party system for well over a hundred years, but it's an unstable equilibrium. At any point in recent history there have only been two parties with a chance, but they have not always been the same two parties. The party currently in power was only founded about a hundred years ago, and wasn't always a major player. Now the Liberal Democrats are starting to look like they may move from third party to second in the next few decades, since it's increasingly difficult to tell the difference between Labour and the Conservatives. Depressingly, the candidate in my constituency last election with the most rational policies was the Welsh nationalist...

Uninformed votes?

[rcamans]

We have misinformed votes, not uninformed votes.
Lies from the government, the media, the advertisers, the special interest groups, big business, the military-industrial complex, pacs, NOW, pro-*, anti-*, religious groups, anti-religious groups, pro-race groups, racist groups, nationalist groups, immigrant groups, liberals, conservatives, the ACLU types, wackos...
The list goes on forever. The web empowers these liars and extremists to a far greater extent than ever before.
So the voters are far more misinformed than ever before.
They re-elected Bush, didn't they (I am a conservative, and voted for him, so I was one of the misinformed, and I am sure I am still misinformed).
That far safer, uninformed vote is only possible from a person who is so out of contact with the "modern" world that he has no clue where, or even when, to vote. (lucky guy)

Get out and vote - but only on the issues you know

[Sarusa]

There's a simple compromise for all this. You can vote and leave blank the issues you have no idea on. I do this with most of the Judge candidates - I am totally unqualified to vote on whether Judge John Smith is competent for his job in the 18th Circuit Court of Small Claims Appeals so I just leave those items empty.

I do research all the propositions and statewide office candidates, but if you don't want to take the effort on that then just leave those blank and just vote for Governor or whoever else you're damn sure about.

Voting is your duty as a citizen

[tburke]

You probably know more than you think about the merits of most candidates and issues on the ballot. And the intellectual shortcut of voting for a party will be a pretty reliable expression of your interests. Take a little time, think about what is important to you, and vote.

Half a vote

[Tim Ward]

On one issue (a policy matter before Cambridge City Council) I did have an opinion but reckoned that it wasn't worth as much as others who had studied the matter more than I had. So I asked for my vote to be recorded as half a vote.

Surprisingly enough there was no mechanism to record this ... but as the side I was supporting lost handsomely it didn't matter in the end.

Uninformed? Misinformed? What's the difference?

[twifosp]

Most of the voting population out there is misinformed, so what's the difference between uninformed? Lots of voters in 04 thought there was a connection between 9/11 and Iraq. The majority of voters also thought we found working WMD (keyword working, not that dodgey shit they actually did find) in Iraq. Lots of voters are flat out misinformed by various media news outlets, but that doesn't stop them from voting.

So to answer the submitters question; I say yes! Just because you ignore politics (tsk tsk) doesn't mean you are as uninformed as you think you are. And if you are completely uninformed, set aside 30 minutes and start typing names into google. Find out who the candidates are. Find their websites. Read the websites.

You can be bothered to submit to Ask Slashdot and subsequently read the comments. So you have no excuses that you can't set aside a measly half hour dedicated to this.

MOD PARENT UP

[Carewolf]

wish I had mod points

If you feel it's important to be informed...

[Anonymous Coward]

THEN GET INFORMED! Don't just say "I'm not informed so I won't vote". Get off your lazy ass and GET INFORMED and then GO VOTE!

Not casting a vote is a vote for the status quo, so you ARE casting an uninformed vote by not voting - you're saying "leave things as they are".

Why not just become informed and then vote?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, everyone says that you shouldn't talk about religion or politics. That is just crazy talk in a democracy to never discuss politics.

I mean it's not like the issues that are just passing you by don't affect you. They affect you a lot. By just surrendering completely and letting everything just pass you by until they hit you in the face like a mac truck you should be involved and informed about what people are doing in your name.

After all, in a democracy, you give your silent consent that you are supporting what is going on unless you stand up and oppose those things that you disagree with.

And I am a conservative too. I stand up 100% for the constitution, the rule of law, a small government that stays out of peoples private lives and a sane fiscal policy, where tax cuts are paid with by cutting spending to match the amount of the tax cut. You know, the regular conservative values.

Cutting taxes while not cutting spending is just an insane policy that puts our debt onto the backs of our children and grandchildren.

I am strait, not a rabid closet gay, so I really don't care one way or another about gay people. But I would be willing to compromise on the whole issue by having a civil union between any two people that want to have the protections afforded by society to normal couples, you know, health care, inheritance, the right to visit sick people in the hospital. Normal decent human values.

I do know that I don't want the government interfering in anyones reproductive rights or in their personal sexual lives. That is not the role of government. And the reproductive decisions that people make are between them, their family, their gods (if any) and their doctors. Government has no business butting in there. And talk about a group of terrorist, the American "Christian" Taliban that is bombing clinics is as much a group of terrorists as any in the world.

Same way with medical care. The next of kin should have absolute right to decide what happens to sick people. The whole deal with the republican controlled federal government interfering between a man and a wife with that woman who was brain dead literally made me feel sick to my stomach. I never want to see a family interfered with that way again. Family values, my ass.

Religion should be something private between me and my god. We each get to decide what it is that god is telling us to do and then abide by that moral code. But that doesn't make me holier than thou, or give me the right to inflict my bizarre beliefs onto anyone else. What anyone interpretation of that their bible says has no business being part of our laws. For one thing, you can't get two people to agree that the christian bible says the same thing. Another reason is that we are nation of many religions, we fled from the church of england and other governmental churches that the government used to enforce other peoples moral views into peoples private lives. We have separation between church and state because our founding fathers had to put up with that kind of crap and thankfully spared us from it.

Let's say we do become a Christian nation. The next step after that is that you suddenly have to become the "right kind" of Christian. You will suddenly have to have bizarre beliefs forced onto you that you don't think that is what the bible means, but if you resist, then you will be punished by people who are untiring in their persecution, because the right of god is on their side. Imagine the most whacked out nut job religious guy you ever met. That is the guy who gravitates to positions of authority in a religious country. Won't that be fun.

I just wish I had a party that shared my conservative values, but as a compromise I am voting strait democrat. Maybe with a democratic house of representatives we can at least get some oversight of what is going on and get some sort of debate on at least some of the issues.

Maybe at the very least we can get them arguing with each other enough they stop passing all these laws that are pointed at Americans, eroding our rights.

Re:Let me answer your question with this statement

[budgenator]

Firstly if the candidate isn't incumbent to the position, than anything you do know about him/her is going to quickly fall victim to the realities of political wheeling and dealing; secondly if he is an incumbent, your only likely to know a carefully manicured position statement about him. Politicians generally put great effort in giving the most horrific bills the most touchy feel-good titles so they can bash their opponants for opposing them. The best one can really hope for is to get some eyeball to eyeball time and to tell the rascal in no uncertain terms, that he represents you, not the Democrats, or the Republicans or the unions or the business lobbies or any other group or PAC just you and if he ever forgets it, you will not, then you have to stick to it.

NO NO NO

[visionsofmcskill]

I understand your delima, but the point is that no vote is not a democracy. I respect your right not to vote, your right to choose no-one if you so feel, but what is so critical to our country and system is that you go and vote, even if that vote is for no-one at all, quite literally meaning going to the polling place, looking at whats on the board, and opting not to cats a vote for anyone at all. I know it sounds/seems like a watse of time, but it isnt, we need to work on getting everyone in our country who is eligible to vote to the polls, and to have all those who are agnostic or totally unsatisified with their options in the process. That way they may actually take an intrest in the canidates and the issues surrounding their locality. I am in strong support of a tax deduction for voting (something small like 100$ deduction with some sort of stub), to literally make it more compelling for our voters to participate. Many people oppose this because of the prospects of "paying people to vote" or even more often (when i speak with politicians and representatives directly) they claim that it shuold be a "privlege" to vote, and incentivising it is contrary to that. Those opinions may be somewhat correct, and i dont disagree with them on deeper levels, but in my mind the most important thing we can do as a society is to take the necesary (non-corruptive) steps to get as many voters to the polls as possible. So we dont have a country run by less than 30% of registered voters... which is less than 15% of our population. Think about it. A true democracy depends on everyone voting, even if the vote itself is blank. --VISION

vote opposite of all advertisement

[Anonymous Coward]

It's sad, but true.

The loudests advertisements come from the most money.
The most money ususally is not helping any public cause.

Here are some rules:

- whatever the ads tell you to do, vote the opposite
- if unsure on an issue, vote no
- if there is too much war, vote for women.
- vote no on bonds (which is often unneeded debt(future taxes) to compensate for a budget hole).

Googling is not difficult

[orz]

Consult the candidates websites. Consult wikipedia. Consult google. Consult friends and family who might be more informed. It's not difficult to find out where candidates stand on the issues of the day, which companies they've (mis-)managed, and their general message and tone. You can probably get a general idea of the candidates in 5 or 10 minutes per candidate, less for those that you reject quickly.

Vote Third or Fourth Party

[Morosoph]

You won't, realistically, speaking know nothing about the parties standing, so take a moment to consider the parties to the best of your knowledge, and vote for one that isn't likely to get in.

The message that you send will be about as clear as your intent. In fact clearer than that of many voters who know that whatever the party programme, they're voting for someone that will exercise their judgement on the voter's behalf, sometimes in opposition to that programme.

There are more subtle reasons to vote third party:

• Increasing the choice increases the degree of democracy for everyone
• Your specific choice will add strength to the cause in future elections
• Whoever gets in, they will have some idea how to win your vote next time around (your vote counts as a signal), so that you are likely to be more strongly represented than someone who actually voted for the candidate
• You can effect that election as people intuit* the degree of support for various parties in the area

*I did some canvassing for a centrist, socially liberal party in Britain, and one strategy was to go after the vote of the less-supported "main" party, which resulted in an equal number of votes falling from the other party, now that their provisional supporters felt less threatened.

Freakonomics

[blackmonday]

I liked the freakonmics book quite a bit - so I was interested on their take of the elections. Today's blog is interesting, as well as a post from last year.

In a nutshell, voting is an irrational act in the strict economic sense. The twist is that a large group of people acting irrationally have a rational and useful output. Cool stuff.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to vote!

[Xeger]

1) TOE THE PARTY LINE if you absolutely must. The positions of both major parties have varied wildly across the decades; however, they are generally good about trumpeting the talking points of the day. Every election day, take five minutes to familiarize yourself with the CURRENT core positions of each party. Then, take the easy way out and vote for a party instead of for individual candidates.

2) ACT LOCAL. Even if you ignore national and state offices, the least you can do is vote for your county and city legislature and judiciary. The local government has a far bigger impact on your life than the US or state government. Furthermore, it's generally much easier to determine where local candidates stand on local issues. Am I the only person in the world whose mailbox gets bombarded on a daily basis with leaflets, pamphlets, fliers and postcards from would-be city council members?

3) TRUST YOUR FRIENDS. I have many friends of similar viewpoints to me. We like the same foods, listen to the same music, and have convergent political views. Just as I trust my friends to recommend new foods or music, I trust them to recommend candidates or ballot props for my consideration. Of course, they need to back up their opinions, but they are rational and intelligent people, and come election day we've often informed each other's opinions.

4) PROTEST VOTING is perfectly acceptable. You say you hate Democrats and Republicans? Fine -- choose the candidate who most appeals to you, regardless whether he's Green or Libertarian or Nutbagalicious. Cast your vote for the person you believe in, and they will get more campaign funding in future elections! Hell, write in yourself for all I care! At the very least, you are swelling the ranks of the "independent" voters and showing the pollsters and bean-counters that some people in this country are still capable of thinking for themselves.

Re:It doesn't take a rocket scientist to vote!

[doom]

This is a good set of rules of thumb, that I would summarize as "use proxies". When you don't have time to make up your mind about something, you can choose to follow the advice of someone that you're willing to trust (at least provisionally) to have thought the issue through more carefully than you have.

This amounts to choosing a representative to help you choose a representative. Why not?

Taller Candidate

[benhocking]

Now there's a platform (shoe) I can support!

It's Your Job

[ewhac]

I think you may be mis-conceptualizing the relationship between you and the people you vote for. We give them fancy titles like, "Mayor," and "Governor," and "Senator," but that only serves to obscure what they actually are.

They're your employees.

And you're their boss.

You hired them to do a job -- to look after the day-to-day management issues of maintaining civilization. Some of them do forward planning, anticipating future needs and trying to get in front of it so the community infrastructure will be ready.

Make no mistake: If they weren't there doing the job, you'd have to do it. That includes everything from managing and building relationships with foreign powers and defending the realm against hostiles, all the way down to keeping the streets clean. You've hired them to do this work, so that you don't have to and can pursue higher goals.

Well, every couple of years or so come Performance Reviews. You are in charge of this, and it is up to you to review your employees' work and decide whether they should stay on, or let them go in favor of a new applicant. Are we in good standing with our neighbors? Is the treasury full and well-managed? Are we in a position to handle the changes we foresee 5, 10, 20 years down the road? Can we handle the unexpected (fire, flood, earthquake)? Can we effectively defend ourselves? Are the streets clean?

Asking these questions and making these evaluations is your job; this is what you have to do to be a good boss. Yes, it's bloody inconvenient, but it's a farkload more convenient that having to do yourself all that work you hired them to do. And if you don't do it, you risk your employees taking advantage of you.

It's your job. Get out there and do it.

Schwab

Re:Let me answer your question with this statement

[Saxerman]

Informed-ness is in the eye of the beholder.

Too true, and so sad. I didn't actually vote until I was 26 because of my fear of my own ignorance. I was buying into the political rhetoric that the issues were complicated and I needed considerable research to provide a properly informed decision on election day.

But what the hell does that even mean? "Properly informed" by whom? What critical piece of information was *I* missing that somehow invalidated my opinion, or at least made it less worthy than others? Did I honestly belive that the electorate which did believe in themselves enough to vote were doing an adequate job of choosing the leadership of this country? Is the list of those to vote *for* even adequate to the task? I clearly belive this is not the case, but what should I then do about it? Am I then charged with civic responsibility to either run myself or inspire a worthy candidate? Would this obligation then charge me with doing my utmost to get into office? How far would I really have to take this responsibility?

Of course, the answer for me turns out to be far more simple. My problem wasn't ignorance, but procrastination. I would always wait until the last moment to decide if I should get informed on the issues, until I eventually decided to not bother. I mean, I didn't even know where or how to register! Yet, but taking a little initiative to start researching before the election, I quickly found the information I needed from my state website, which also listed all the candidates which would be on my local ballot. Using the little state bio information provided was more than enough to google each of them. Although there is certainly a lot (sic) of biased political information on the web, it really didn't take me long to decide which candidates I preferred. I registered as an Independent, and more often than note my votes tend to cross party lines. However I suspect this isn't so much that I'm a moderate, but because our sad excuse for a two party system has turned into giant political monoliths that blur the issues in an attempt to garner mass appeal.

no vote is better

[parrothead]

uninformed votes lead to mob rule. Mob rule is well, the bloody part of the French revolution. Hitler proved all to well as do current election processes in the U.S., that the mob is easy to convince of pretty much anything.

Disagree here

[Ihlosi]

Greg says: "Sometimes...the most responsible thing a person can do on election day is stay at home ... If you really don't know enough to cast an intelligent vote, you should be eager to let your more informed neighbors make the decision." What do you think?

Not casting a vote is a sign that you agree with what's going on.

Go to the polls, and cast an invalid ballot (make lots of check-marks, draw on it, whatever). Of course, this might not work with voting machines.

blank ballot

[kattphud]

Here's an option that many people haven't explored: Cast a blank ballot. That's what I did at the last two Presidential elections. Both major parties colluded to practically exclude third parties de facto, if not by de jure in some states, and then post their own little puppets to be voted on. What's worse, I believe that each party knew that some major issue (economy, foreign relations, etc) was going to crap very soon and wanted the other party to take the fall, so they deliberately put up weak candidates.

So, I cast blank ballots. I show up at my polling place (a Baptist church: [sarcasm]a shining beacon of freedom and neutrality[/sarcasm]), show my ID, get my ballot, vote on issues, and leave all spaces for public office blank . This is my small protest against the establishment. I know it may be petty and useless, but no less so than my vote is under the Electoral College anyway.

Re:blank ballot

[Anonymous Coward]

If you have been paying attention to recounts, you should know that a blank spot on a ballot is considered to be an 'undervote' and is taken to mean 'this voter was too old, weak, or stupid to fill out the ballot correctly'.

It really should not mean that of course, but that's election-recount politics for you...

Re:blank ballot

[kattphud]

Like I said, my gesture is largely a symbolic protest. I'm perfectly aware of how useless and pointless it is. It's just that in good conscience I cannot vote for any candidate when I think none are qualified, nor can I fail to show up at all.

Too easy

[Thakandar2]

In ten minutes, I could find all the candidates' pages for your district, give you a quick summary of their stances on almost any issue, and then send you to the ballot box with that information. If the submitter posts to slashdot, then it's pretty safe to say he's Googled once or twice in his life.

The poster is just looking for an excuse to be lazy and wishy washy. If he's concerned his vote would be used for harm if he voted the wrong way, then he needs to make sure his vote is used to stop people he doesn't want in office. 10 minutes and Google will tell you who you don't want.

Why are you assuming I'd choose the slap?

[benhocking]

You must be anti-American! Surely the bat symbolizes baseball and is therefore the best option!

But seriously, if you feel that strongly, vote for a write-in (e.g., "zerbert"). At least you'll be voting - and that very clearly states that you're not lazy, you're disgusted with the choices.

Re:Why are you assuming I'd choose the slap?

[TrekkieGod]

But seriously, if you feel that strongly, vote for a write-in

Well, sure. But that's still not choosing the lesser of two evils, which is the term I originally disagreed with. Whether or not voting for a write-in is more effective than not voting in "showing" anyone anything is debatable, although at least I agree that it's a perfectly valid choice.

However, a write-in is still "lazy" to some extent. Like I mentioned in my original post, if you're not lazy, and you're disgusted the choices, you should get involved with politics. That ranges from lobbying to running for office yourself. It's not easy, but it's better than voting for the lesser of two evils.

The answer is...

[Dreben]

...get informed and stay informed. Its hard for me to fathom living in a democracy and crying ignorance about that which keeps our democracy from descending into something other than democracy, (i.e., fascism, socialism, whatever -ism you don't want to descent into).

I don't cast a vote on every issue, particularly ones that don't affect me but may be on the ballot, or those written in a way that make them hard to comprehend. However, everyone in the states that is of voting age has a responsibility to stay informed at some level.

Re:Let me answer your question with this statement

[rwven]

I think at one point in history the party affiliation of a candidate would have stood for something. I can understand the writer's position simply because party lines are meaning less and less as time goes on. Republicans range from Neo-conservative all the way over to liberal and Democrats range from conservative all the way over to Ultra-liberal.

Anymore you can't trust that a person agrees with your political stances based on their party. 50 years ago it was more cut and dry. You pretty much were sure that party X stood for conviction X.

I'm going to vote in a little bit here and while I'm 90% informed, I'm really just going to have to vote straight-ticket for that other 10%...

It depends...

[tallguywithglasseson]

If you agree with me, you should vote because it's your civic responsibility. If not, you should remain uninformed of the candidates and refrain from voting.

Down with Libertarian Enemies of the People

[Swift2001]

I think you should all retire to my little work camp, where you can your worst little pansy fears of the State confirmed, but you will at least be making license plates, or anything useful. And we can make some money off you for a change. Disgruntled Statist, who realizes that libertarians are just right-wingers with a hoity-toity attitude.

Vote Anyway

[Phoenix666]

"I don't know enough about the issues" is a lame excuse to not vote. What, do you have to be a policy wonk to vote? Perhaps you think that the only people qualified to vote have PhDs in political science? Nonsense. If you're an American citizen, you're 18 years old or older, then you have the right to vote. It's the most important right you have in this political system, because every other right you have is safeguarded by that one right. It's the one you go to war over if it's taken away or subverted. And we have, and people have died for you and I to have it.

People who say you have a duty to vote are putting the wrong connotation on it, because they make it seem like a burden. Some of those say that because they naturally say everything with a negative tone. Some of those say it because they believe in civic duty as a positive thing, that which you do to serve your family, community, and fellow citizens, the same way you would join a bucket line to put out the fire consuming your neighbor's house. Some of those, though, say it because they want it to seem like too much bother to get off your couch to do, because whenever they get you to not vote, their vote counts for double, the one they cast and the one you didn't cast.

So voting is not homework. It's not a high school physics exam. It's not even remotely painful. It's joyous. YOU get to tell the politicians and parties what for, in a more powerful way than anything else you can do. Everyone repeats the myth that money is the most important, but it's not. At the end of the day, it's the votes. Steve Forbes had all the money he needed, but at the end of the day he did not get the votes. Ross Perot had more money than Bush, Cheney, and all their gang put together, but at the end of the day he did not get the votes. It's not the money, it's the votes. They spend all that money trying to buy your vote. That's how valuable your vote is.

So walk into that polling place and cast your vote like you just hit the lottery and are laying out a wad of cash to buy that shiny new Ferrari.

Ballot measures, people

[davidbrit2]

Seriously, you can go with no idea who's running, and in my state at least, the ballot measures and proposals are summarized with nice bullet points so you know more or less what you're voting for. There's no good excuse not to at least go and consider them, even if you have no intention of casting a vote for a single candidate.

Personally, I only felt informed enough to vote for the office of governor, and 4 of the 5 ballot measures. So that's what I did, and left all the other options undecided.

Slightly Conservative?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're slightly conservative then vote Democract because they are closer to you than the extreme right wing stance the Republicans have taken.

When in doubt, throw the bastards out.

[Intellectual Elitist]

Seriously. Over the long run, voting anti-incumbent every time is going to do less damage than allowing anyone of any party to get entrenched. If you're informed enough to know that someone deserves re-election according to your beliefs, then so be it -- but when in doubt, throw the bastards out.

And if you have more than one alternative to the incumbent, go third party. Any chink in the major two's armor is good for America.

Democracy breaks if not everyone try and vote

[Apa]

It's important for everyone to go and vote to prevent a small political group with active members to "coup" themselves into being elected. No one is 100% informed, it's a sliding scale anyway. Even if you don't think any of the choices deserve to win, always vote for the lesser evil, don't stay home in protest or it will just end up worse since the bad guys will go and vote anyway (like in pre WW2 germany). And next time try to be more informed! :)

Depends on why you're uninformed

[Jeff Molby]

If you're uninformed because you're disgusted by the current nature of politics in this country, you really should vote for change. Pick an independent party (Green = Left, Libertarian = Right) and give them your support. It's a long shot (on the national level, at least), but it's really the only way we can ever change the status quo and it'll cost you less than an hour every couple years.

If you're uninformed because you simply don't want to be involved, please do us a favor and stay uninvolved.

BTW, the goal of voting for independents is two-fold.
- Make sure they get enough support in the short-term to keep them on the ballot.
- Try to elect enough of them (locally, if nothing else) so that alternative voting methods can be realistically explored. Personally, I think Approval voting is the best bet in the short term.

Do the best you can

[yaphadam097]

I can't always know everything that I would like to about every federal/state/county/city candidate, judge, ballot initiative, etc. For example, here in California today's ballot was four full pages (Two sides of two cards.) So, I have a simple set of rules that I follow:

For candidates for office:
1) If I know which candidate I intend to vote for I vote for that person.

2) Otherwise, I vote based on party affiliation:
      a) For federal offices I may vote *against* a candidate from one party if I don't like that party by voting for the opponent with the best chances of winning. Even though that candidate may not be affiliated with my party.
      b) In all other cases I vote for the candidate my party has nominated.
      c) If my party has not nominated a candidate:
            1. I vote against the encumbent (I call this my "fresh start" rule. YMMV.)
            2. If I don't know who the encumbent is then I abstain.

For ballot initiatives:
1) Only vote yes if I feel that I understand what is being proposed and believe that new legislation will have a positive impact on the issue without creating undue tax burden.

2) Otherwise I vote no.

So, in a worse case scenario where I found myself at the poll with no idea what was going on, I would just vote for everyone who was listed as a member of my party (Libertarian in case anyone cares,) vote no on all the initiatives, and abstain from the rest. While this would never happen, because I go to lengths to be informed, I still feel that I would be making a positive contribution in this hypothetical scenario. The point is that I know what I believe in and I can use that to create general guidelines even if I am not informed on every issue.

If you want to let your neighbors decide ...

[dhilvert]

... then perhaps the best thing to do is to go to the polls.

After all, you probably have a better idea of what your neighbors want than does some fellow across town, so if you believe that your neighbors know better than some fellow across town, then go out and vote with them. Of course, the same argument could be applied to any other group that you are politically aligned with, such as tech-knowledgeable individuals, friends, etc.

If you do decide to stay at home, rest assured that this will probably have no effect on the electoral outcome, but, on the other hand, your friends who do vote might think ill of you if they learn this, since they expended the effort to vote, while you, who are politically aligned with them, didn't, hence reducing their effective voting power.

It is your right!

[rspress]

It is your right to vote or not to vote. However if you don't vote then when you complain about who got elected your argument means next to nothing. I know a lot of people who complain about who is in office or what laws get passed yet they never vote. I used to tell them that if they don't vote then they can't complain but they complain about that when I say it. ;-)

I now just tell them that their complaints mean nothing. Since they don't vote they are not being heard so I don't hear what they say. They still complain but I don't hear it anymore. ;-)

Your options

[Anonymous Coward]

If you are totally ignorant, your options are:

1. Vote for D or R according to a coin toss.

2. Vote for an independent.

3. Don't vote.

None of these, on average, shifts the balance between the D and R.

But if sufficient number of ignorants opted for the (2), then, maybe, just maybe, both D and R would listen a to people a little more trying to figure out how to attract more voters.

Truism

[Spazmania]

The standard truism is this:

If you didn't vote then you voted for the winner of the election. If you don't like what he does, its your fault.

Perhaps if the President wasn't a stupid Democrat

[Maltheus]

Then I might be willing to vote for Secretary of State Cheney in the 2007 elections.

Realistic Solution

[Morosoph]

1. Vote to the best of your knowledge, unless you know that the bulk of your sources are biased.

Or

2. Toss a coin as to whether you should vote or not.

The latter is if you really want to record half a vote; there'll be enough uncertainty in others' reasoning to make this option entropically valid.

BTW, your site is very useful: I found my previous house (before I got a council flat) on it. You provide an extremely valuable service.

No vote = No right to protest

[homebrandcola]

You said "I don't want to vote Republican or Democrat, only to find out later I totally disagree with something a candidate stands for."

Which is fair enough. But if you don't vote, and later on you find out that you totally disagree with the candidate who won don't go crying to anyone that you don't like them and what they stand for. What did you do in an effort to keep them out?

  -
I live in a country where you are required to turn up to a polling station for an ellection. The law doesn't say anything about actaully voting.

With Citizenship Comes Responsibility

[Aesiq]

You should first and foremost grow up and learn that this is not a joke. People have died, both liberal and conservative, for this one great priviledge in America. While today you should be ashamed of your question, you have life and breath to go out, learn and become at least a tiny part of the process.

No, don't vote.

[endianx]

If you don't know anything about the candidate or issues, no, don't vote.

But really, with sites like vote-smart.org, it really is not too difficult to get a basic understanding of who you are voting for fairly quickly. Anybody can spare a couple hours before an election to do some basic research.

It's the Primary that counts

[QuantumPion]

In America, where only two parties are given a chance at winning by the media [and thus they shape perception that way into reality], you really can't lose by voting for a 3rd party. If you aren't happy with the current system, staying home isn't getting changes put into place. But if you vote Green, or Libertarian, or Independent, you're sending a message that you don't trust mainstream politics. Imagine what would happen if 10% of the voters went for non-Democrat and non-Republican. Could politicians really believe that that many millions of Americans don't deserve to be represented in Congress or the Presidency?

They'd HAVE to change the system to a more fair electoral system.

I disagree. If you happen to prefer a particular policy, you may be inclined to vote for a strong third-party candidate, whose beliefs closely match yours, over a weak populist candidate from the main stream party. While in an ideal political system you could vote for the best candidate, in our system your best option is to vote for the lesser of two evils. When too many people vote for the third candidate, you preclude the mainstream candidate from winning. Thus, you will be worse off when the candidate with polar opposite views to your own inevitably wins.

Now you may think it would be a good idea to "send a message", or "teach your party a lesson" by voting for a third party. The problem is that when your party loses, they resort to compromising their beliefs in order to try to regain their positions. After becoming sick of the opposition party being in power, you will probably vote for any populist candidate of your own party so that you will at least have someone tolerable representing you. But then the cycle repeats, the tolerable candidate will inevitably disappoint you again, and you will again teach them a lesson by kicking them out, and so forth.

The best strategy is to always vote for the lesser of two evils in our two-party system. Your job is to make sure that the best candidate wins in the primary election. There, you have the ability to punish a populist or ineffective representative in favor of one whom is in your best interest.

However, as far as American politics are concerned, this situation may change in the near future. If the republicans score a major victory today, the democrats may actually self-destruct. At this point, the republicans may fracture into the neoconservative and libertarian camps, resulting in a three party system.

Re:It's the Primary that counts

[From A Far Away Land]

"The best strategy is to always vote for the lesser of two evils in our two-party system. Your job is to make sure that the best candidate wins in the primary election."

I disagree with your view, based on the fact we're discussing an average American Joe who doesn't care to get involved at a party level and vote when it most counts for a party nomination or something along those lines. Therefore the average voter, has to support a candidate that opposes the status quo, and in America both Democrats and Republicans are entirely the status quo.

You can't tell me that voting for Hillary in 2008 will be democracy in action, leading to your country being ruled by either Bushes or Clintons for 24 years straight. That just CAN'T happen in a real democracy/republic of 300,000,000 people, without some serious election problems/manipulation at different levels.

Most Republican are uninformed voters

[Anonymous Coward]

They watch Fox "News". Stupid is as stupid does.

Don't be silly

[khallow]

In the time it takes someone to whine about being uninformed, they could be researching their vote choice. Almost everyone has a sample ballot online. The League of Women Voters provides a lot of information for just about everyone. Campaign finance records are online even if you don't have the time to study them in detail. And there's plenty of stuff on candidates just from googling around. If I can't make an informed vote, I leave it blank. For example, I researched the entire ballot for my part of California kind of last minute. Some things I had already decided to vote for (eg, the Governator for another four years). But turns out I missed a choice for school board, so I left that blank. It took a couple hours (plus consider time that I had spent earlier reading up on the propositions) and I'd rather have spent longer (I hadn't budgeted the time before a major weekend trip). I did make sure I voted against the clown, Bill Lockyer who was suing automakers for global warming.

READ THIS RAS_B

[Anonymous Coward]

You probably have depression or a self-esteem problem. The time it took you to submit this question to Slashdot could have been spent bringing yourself up to speed on the candidates, you chose to avoid it and cling to ignorance. Take action - right now so you don't put it off - and schedule an appointment with a therapist.

Pardon?

[s20451]

Therefore, not voting because you don't think you are informed enough results in fewer votes by smart people. It puts more power in the hands of the stupid.

This is a perfect example of the fallacy of appeal to authority. Being smart but ignorant does not somehow make your ignorance any more valuable than that of stupid people.

Re:Pardon?

[selfdiscipline]

Yes, but how do you measure ignorance? If you could find some metric for ignorance, and took a ignorant stupid person (ok, you'd also have to measure intelligence, which would be its own can of worms) and an equally ignorant smart person, then sure... neither would be more qualified to make a good (to say well-informed) vote.

But the nice thing about smart people is sometimes they can bridge their ignorance with inferences that stupid people cannot make. Whether those inferences make them less ignorant (because they're perhaps less ignorant for knowing how to use them) is a question I'm not gonna attempt to answer.

Also, and I should have addressed this first: Appeal to authority?! are you equating authority with intelligence? Surely you must not be very familiar with authority. Plus, if one is an "authority" on a particular subject, they have knowledge about it... the opposite of ignorance, and the definition of what this debate is (or should be) about.

Re:Pardon?

[Lord Ender]

You are incorrect (in many cases). A smart person is more likely to recognize his own ignorance, while a stupid person is likely to make decisions based on FALSE information.

Smart people can often realize when someone is trying to mislead them, while stupid people are much more likely to fall for it.

Who is more valuable (to use your term): The person who knows the extent of his own knowledge, or the person with factually incorrect "knowledge?"

Re:Pardon?

[Digital Vomit]

Yes, but how do you measure ignorance?

In Bushels?

Re:Pardon?

[Lemmy Caution]

A dumb person who know that there's a rattlesnake in my sleeping bag might be more important to listen to than a smart person who doesn't.

That said, anyone who can go this far without understanding the basic political temperaments of the parties is someone who doesn't know which sleeping bag has the rattlesnake.

Re:Pardon?

[s20451]

Agreed, but in the original post, you appeared to suggest that a person who is aware of their ignorance should vote *anyway*, suggesting that they would somehow make a more intelligent choice than a stupid ignorant person.

Supposing that ignorance is total, an ignorant vote has no more "value" than someone who goes to the voting booth and rolls a dice to decide how to vote. The awareness of ignorance is independent of the names on the ballot, and cannot transfer intelligence into the choice. The same is true of someone who votes based on false knowledge, assuming that the false knowledge is also independent of the ballot.

However, in my model, I'm assuming that our "intelligent ignorant person" has no prior knowledge at all, not even of the parties. I suspect that you are imagining a world in which ignorance is not total. Also, if someone is trying to manipulate a stupid person into voting based on false knowledge, the independence assumption breaks down.

Re:Pardon?

[Anonymous Coward]

A better way of putting it is that a wise person is more likely to recognize their own ignorance.

Re:Pardon?

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

I'm sorry. I believe you misspelt "Bushificationalisms".

Re:Pardon?

[demallien2]

Maybe in the US, but the SI unit is actually the What....

Re:Pardon?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but how do you measure ignorance?

According to Shannon, it's called entropy, and is measured in bits.

(Ok, I didn't really answer your question, but I had to go for the geek answer.)

Consent of the Governed

[Doc Ruby]

Even more important than your share of the decisionmaking, which is small, is the "buy-in" by you to the government that is chosen. Even if your choices lose, if you vote you at least had your say, and are more likely to say it's a relatively fair process. And of course participation by you, along with everyone else, helps ensure that the public's requirements are part of the system. Per person, the inclusion of your whole person in the process is bigger than your contribution to the decision.

Otherwise, just the "special people" would vote, only their kind of voting process would go on, and only they would be part of the system that rules them for the next year or two or four or six. And eventually that cut-out part of the people would become ungovernable.

Elections are orderly revolutions. Why should disorderly revolutions have all the fun of ignorant masses deciding the rulers?

Herm...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Get Informed."

Check...

"Get to the Ballot."

Check...

"Get your vote counted."

Fuck! It was a paperless touchscreen!

Re:Question is a Logical Falacy!

[Anonymous Coward]

Many people have fought and died for over the last 200+ years so that YOU have the priviledge of participating in our democracy. There is no excuse. Get informed and Go vote.
Many people have fought and died for over the last 200+ years so that YOU have the right to choose whether to vote or not. There is no excuse for forcing people to vote.

Easy

[DocBoss]

No, don't vote.

Get off your lazy ass

[RKBA]

Get off your lazy ass and get informed on the issues and then VOTE!

I know I'm burning Karma, but that was my first reaction to this submission.

HTH - Voter's Guide

[felix rayman]

If you think torture is bad, check D. If you think torture is good, check R.
If you think war is a last resort, check D. If you think war is a business opportunity, check R.
If you think molesting pages is bad, check D. If you think revealing that someone is molesting pages is bad, check R.
If you think science is a valuable tool, check D. If you think science is biased against Republicans, check R.
If you believe in individual liberty, check D. If you prefer a king to a president, check R.
If you put the rights of individuals before the rights of corporations, check D. If you put the rights of corporations before the rights of individuals, check R.
If you believe all Americans should benefit from their growing productivity, check D. If you believe those gains should be reserved for those with incomes in the top 1/10th of 1%, check R.
If you believe in getting the facts and then making a decision, check D. If you believe in making a decision, then making up the facts, check R.
If you believe in taxing and spending, check D. If you believe in borrowing and spending, check R.
If you believe in massive government programs to provide decent health care, check D. If you believe in massive government programs to provide crappy health care, check R.
If you believe Big Brother watches people too much, check D. If you believe Big Brother needs to watch people more, check R.
If you believe child labor, unsafe workplaces, and pollution are bad, check D. If you believe we need more of these things, check R.
If you believe in Social Security, unemployment insurance, and aid to children in poverty, check D. If you believe we need less of these things, check R.
If you believe in the separation of church and state, check D. If you prefer a state religion, check R.
If you believe the only thing to fear is fear itself, check D. If you only believe in fear, check R.

You are now equipped to make a more informed decision than at least 51% of the voters in the 2004 election.

Good luck, and godspeed.

Re:HTH - Voter's Guide

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been looking for something like this to counter the billboards in the county south of me - "Vote Republican. Vote Your Values."

This is *perfect*. Thank you.

Re:HTH - Voter's Guide

[hendersj]

There's one missing from here:

If you believe that a president's power should be controlled by a constitutional series of checks and balances, check D. If you believe that the president's power should be unchecked and he should be allowed to place himself above the law, check R.

WHAT NEEDS TO BE ASKED

[Rooked_One]

is which side is more intelligent... then base your numbers off of that and which group pays attension to the drama we call news, especially on which channels.

Ignorance of the American Population

[Anonymous Coward]

If you are so willfully ignorant that you cannot even follow the simple instructions to correctly punch the right holes in a ballot, then your vote should not count.

However, most people feel that the votes of such ignorant people should count. As a result, we are switching to electronic voting machines that try to protect an ignorant person from his own ignorance. Yet, such machines are even worse than paper ballots in terms of preventing fraud.

Some states even use machines without paper trails.

Re:Ignorance of the American Population

[Mark Maughan]

If you are so willfully ignorant that you cannot even follow the simple instructions to correctly punch the right holes in a ballot, then your vote should not count.

Accepting that, those mistaken votes should also not count towards one particular party.

VOTE!!

[limegreenman]

Democracy is not a "good" form of government, but a "least worst" form of government. It is least worst in that it makes it tends to prevent governments with extreme views from taking power, as long as most people vote. This is why it is (or at least should be) key that as many people as possible vote, and that there is universal franchise. An extreme example of the perils of low voter turnout is the Aquatic Centre at the university I work at. Nobody ever votes in student association things, and as such quorum is acheived at 1% of the total student body. Thus, a relatively organised group of people (in this case, the rowing club and there friends) mustered just under 0.5%, sufficient to spend over a million dollars on their new rowing headquarters.

An Uninformed Vote...

[marshmallow soup]

...is only good if it's for *my* party.

Not necessarily

[joggle]

I have met some reasonably intelligent people that were completely ignorant of the issues and weren't voting because of it. Personally, I don't vote on issues/candidates on which I either have no opinion or don't know enough about (such as county coroner/surveyer).

Representative Democracy

[grege222]

To a certain extent every vote is uninformed. Nobody can know the ramifications of voting for a particular issue, much less for a particular candidate. To abate this, we have a representative democracy, and the whole point of that is because we can't trust everybody to be completely informed on every issue. While I still think that being informed is better than being uninformed, being informed was never intended to be a prerequisite in a representative democracy.

No Vote != not voting

[Anonymous Coward]

On occassion, I have gone to the polls and cast a blank ballot.

Vote or Shutup

[Anonymous Coward]

If you do not vote, then you have no right to ever comment or complain about the actions or lack thereof of government.

And...

[tthomas48]

If you don't know who to vote for. Vote an empty ballot. Empty ballots voted tell Washington that people are paying attention and don't like their choices. Not voting tells Washington people aren't paying attention and that they should feel free to do whatever they want. Part of the reason Bush was able to say he had a mandate was due to the number of people who don't vote. If only 60% of eligible voters voted in the last election, than Bush can say that around 70% (30% voted for him + 40% who didn't vote) of Americans wanted him in office, and Kerry can say that around 70% of Americans wanted him in office. And those "majorities" get even smaller in off year elections. That's disgusting no matter which part of the political spectrum you inhabit.

Btw, trolls don't quibble with my numbers. I'm aware that my percentages are off. That isn't the point of this post. The point is that until more Americans get off their butts and vote, pretending that you speak for anything more than a minority of voters is a joke.

What Is Democracy?

[Deinhard]

From usinfo.state.gov

Citizens cannot be required to take part in the political process, and they are free to express their dissatisfaction by not participating. But without the lifeblood of citizen action, democracy will begin to weaken. Citizens of democratic societies have the opportunity to join a host of private organizations, associations, and volunteer groups. Many of these are concerned with issues of public policy, yet few are controlled or financed by the government. The right of individuals to associate freely and to organize themselves into different sorts of nongovernmental groups is fundamental to democracy. When people of common interests band together, their voices can be heard and their chances of influencing the political debate increased. As Alexis de Tocqueville, the great 19th-century French political observer, wrote, "There are no countries in which associations are more needed to prevent the despotism of faction or the arbitrary power of a prince than those which are democratically constituted."

Vote 3rd-party

[MobyDisk]

In my state, 38% of the eligible voters voted in the last election. So if those 62% went out and voted for each of the 3 other parties (Green, Libertarian, Populist) registered in my state, at random, then we we would have 5 viable parties. That would completely change the political landscape. Finally, there would have to be real discussion on issues. It means that someone would be in office who didn't have campaign contributions from big corporations. It means we would have representatives would be turning away lobbyists instead of making shady deals in smoky rooms (sorry for the cliche). So I say, if you are uninformed, vote for the guaranteed losers.

Re:Do your informed neighbors share your interests

[Anonymous Coward]

even if he went to the polls himself and just picked a candidate randomly, he might have a better chance of casting it for someone whose interests are more closely aligned with his own.

That's where you're wrong.

Kind of hard to believe

[kuriharu]

He says he's kind of conservative but isn't informed enough to vote. If you know what a conservative is, how can you say you're that uninformed?

I'd say get informed and vote! Since you're somewhat conservative you're half way there!

NOT NECESSARILY...

[Bob-taro]

I actually think an uninformed (or underinformed) vote can be worse than no vote because of one thing: deception. The campaign ads (both sides, including "mine") can be very misleading. The ballot wording of proposals are also misleading so I try to look that info up ahead of time. E.g., here in Missouri we voted today on a proposal to eliminate property tax on properties owned by not-for-profit groups. Sounds good - who could it hurt? But if you read the full text (more than what's on the ballot), it mentions that any tax revenue lost will be compensated for by increasing property tax on everyone else. So I would imagine many people will vote "yes" for this, not realizing they may be voting themselves a property tax increase.

One thing I didn't vote on was judge retention. I always forget to research that, which is too bad because I do feel strongly about getting rid of activist judges. But how can I vote on whether to retain someone I know absolutely nothing about (not even party affiliation)?

That's my story, and it's up to you whether you feel informed enough to vote, but I encourage you not to sell yourself short. You can probably spend an hour or 2 on research and be just as informed as most of your fellow voters.

What about Ballot Initiatives?

[eltonito]

Great, so you don't vote on candidates, but nearly every state has an initiative on the ballot. Most ballot initiatives I have seen are simple judgment calls...

Prop 1A - Anti-Clowning Law.
Yes, I support a law against clowning.
No, I believe clowning should be legal.

Most ballot initiatives are that simple. I've had the pleasure of voting on several initiatives just this year and all of them were really simple to read and understand as I was voting on them. There was no flip of the coin, no guessing or lack of information. I informed myself in the booth.

I don't want to vote Republican or Democrat, only to find out later I totally disagree with something a candidate stands for.

Could you be any more naive? There isn't a single political candidate in any party, that you could agree with on everything they stood for, unless that candidate was yourself. Then again, you'd probably end up changing your mind on something and then believe your vote for yourself went against everything you stood for when you voted for yourself.

Based on that observation, intimate relationships with other people will probably be a nightmare for you.

3rd party candidates

[AaronW]

I don't see all the mudslinging campaign commercials since I have a Replay and tend to watch channels they don't advertise on. So I went through the voter guides with statements by various candidates. At least where I live, a number of candidates could not take the time to fill out what they stand for and why I should vote for them. One Green party candidate complained that it cost $20 per word and would say nothing else but refer to a web site. I'm sorry, but even at $20 per word it looks like the major candidates spent only around $5000, which I'm sure isn't too big of a burden on the Green party or some other part, especially for a state as large as California. In other cases, there were no 3rd party candidates to choose from or their philosophies were so far out of mainstream that I couldn't stomach them.

Unexpectedly, the local race was pretty easy to decide. For our city council there were two incumbents who have done a fairly decent job. The other candidates went from flaky to just plain deranged.

Similarly with the water board... the quality of the local water is pretty good and it's cheap and they've done a good job maintaining a good supply. If the incumbent has done a good job, why change it?

Secretary of State for California was also a no-brainer for me. Debra Bowen, the democratic candidate, has made numerous statements in support of an open-source voting system while her republican opponent is fine and dandy with Diebold and co and more worried about illegal immigrants voting.

I seriously considered 3rd party candidates for governor, but none of them put forth a compelling reason why I should vote for them and either came out as being too far to the right or the left.

I'm sorry, but if I'm to vote for a Green Party or some other 3rd party, a majority of their views should be relatively mainstream middle of the road. After all, whoever is elected will need to work with the state legislature. I mean, why can't a Green Party candidate come out for the environment and not be totally anti-corporation, i.e. try and encourage corporations to be more eco-friendly. Most corporations aren't really evil and have their place. Some actively help promote environmental protection.

The propositions took a bit of research.

Some positions I just didn't know enough about, so I left those blank. Some I went by endorsements since I knew some of the people making the endorsements.

Re:3rd party candidates

[lasthemy]

I'm sorry, but if I'm to vote for a Green Party or some other 3rd party, a majority of their views should be relatively mainstream middle of the road. After all, whoever is elected will need to work with the state legislature. I mean, why can't a Green Party candidate come out for the environment and not be totally anti-corporation, i.e. try and encourage corporations to be more eco-friendly. Most corporations aren't really evil and have their place. Some actively help promote environmental protection.

Because then they'd sound like a Democrat.

Re:3rd party candidates

[JimBobJoe]

One Green party candidate complained that it cost $20 per word and would say nothing else but refer to a web site. I'm sorry, but even at $20 per word it looks like the major candidates spent only around $5000, which I'm sure isn't too big of a burden on the Green party or some other part, especially for a state as large as California.

I think you are severely overestimating the funds that minor parties have. It's very rare that a 3rd party candidate can put that much together.

And independents are important!

[arete]

Summary: vote Dem this time - vote Independent often (explanation below)

The two-party system is NOT part of the American way. The strangehold of the two party system is what gets all kind of bad politicians - from both sides - to get elected without having real positions on issues, and then to pass laws that suck because it's politicially infeasible to vote against your party. It didn't use to be that way.

I'm no fan of the current administration or of the current members of congress who have aligned themselves most closely with it. Which is funny, because I'm really and old-school Republican. But I'm not going to rail against them here. I also have a lot more to be unhappy with from the people in charge - the Dems haven't been ABLE to do anything federally I really didn't like recently. But there are definitely people I love and hate in both parties. What's sick is the number of votes along party lines for crappy legislation...

But our government was founded on the policy of it being hard to get anything done. That's what "checks and balances" means. You should need broad-based support from different sectors to get anything done. Our current two party system doesn't do that. As long as no one is going to stand up to their party, we need at least one house of congress or the president to be different than the other two until we can change that or get more independents.

My first piece of advice is this: In THIS election, for the House at least, vote Democrat. House terms are only two years. For the next two years we are basically guaranteed of a Republican President. This situation is peculiar to mid-term elections... In this particular mid-term I have the same advice about the Senate, because there is zero chance of the Dems getting more than an EXTREMELY narrow majority at this point, so the impact after 2008 is minimal.

Next, if you can't make an informed vote - a vote informed enough for you - then I say make a real effort to vote independent, and do it for local races too. Green and Libertarian seem to be the dominant third parties - one for each direction. But even if they AREN'T your alignment, vote for one of them, preferably whoever is polling higher. It takes almost no research to see that in most major races they have no chance, and therefore your vote can be guaranteed not have an effect on THIS election - which is what you wanted, right? But those results are published far and wide.

The increasing number of independent votes helps finance independent parties, helps establish their creditibility with voters (most of whom have the reverse of the submitter's position - they don't want to "waste" their vote - people hate voting for a loser) and generally gives them an increasing chance to win some elections (starting at the local level) If enough people do it, it also sends a message to the politicians in both major parties that they have something to worry about and that what they actually do in office might just be important.

Re:And independents are important!

[DragonWriter]

The two-party system is NOT part of the American way.

Its been a feature of American government practically since the adoption of the Constitution, and is readily predictable from the combination of Constitutional structure and the kind of voting and districts used from the beginning (admittedly, the latter portions are not Constitutional requirements, and could be changed, but certainly have been generally as the founders envisioned.) The two-party system pretty clearly is part of the "American way" even if it wasn't part of the founders vision (and whether something like it was or wasn't may not be answered the same for each of the founders.)

The strangehold of the two party system is what gets all kind of bad politicians - from both sides - to get elected without having real positions on issues, and then to pass laws that suck because it's politicially infeasible to vote against your party. It didn't use to be that way.

I think that mistakes the source of the problem, the two party system isn't what causes that it is simply another way of stating that effect: the cause is the use of majority-runoff and plurality elections in single member districts for legislative elections combined with the usual rule of winner-take-all statewide elections of multi-seat slates of Presidential electors.

But our government was founded on the policy of it being hard to get anything done.

True of the Articles of Confederation, less true of the system under the Constitution, which was largely a result of the perception that that whole "make it hard to get anything done" idea had been taken way too far.

The increasing number of independent votes helps finance independent parties, helps establish their creditibility with voters (most of whom have the reverse of the submitter's position - they don't want to "waste" their vote - people hate voting for a loser) and generally gives them an increasing chance to win some elections

The only thing that is going to give currently-minor parties (they are no more "independent" than the majors) a reasonable chance of winning more than the occasional office is radical reform of electoral systems, which is probably going to have to be led by a citizen initiative in some state which allows them, or total collapse of a major party (which will just allow one minor party to replace one major party, as the Republicans effectively did when the Whigs collapsed.)

Re:And independents are important!

[westlake]

The two-party system pretty clearly is part of the "American way"

You can see the lines of fracture developing when Washington first tried to fit Hamilton and Jefferson into the same administration.

The only thing that is going to give currently-minor parties (they are no more "independent" than the majors) a reasonable chance of winning more than the occasional office is radical reform of electoral systems, which is probably going to have to be led by a citizen initiative

I think winner-take-all ia too much a part of an American's way of thinking for this to happen. We don't like tie games, we don't like multiple-choice.

Re:And independents are important!

[phiwum]

The two-party system is NOT part of the American way. The strangehold of the two party system is what gets all kind of bad politicians - from both sides - to get elected without having real positions on issues, and then to pass laws that suck because it's politicially infeasible to vote against your party. It didn't use to be that way.


"It didn't use to be that way" when? Name a single time in American history in which there were three or more viable parties and it wasn't a transition from the old two to the new two.

I am not defending the two party system, but I don't see any historic evidence for your claim that America used to be different in this respect.

Re:And independents are important!

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, nobody was saying this during the 40 years of Democrat control of both houses and then every once in a while the Presidency. They only bring this up when Republicans have control. Very hypocritical.

Re:And independents are important!

[arete]

>>> the two party system isn't what causes that it is simply another way of stating that effect: the cause is the use of majority-runoff and plurality elections in single member districts for legislative elections combined with the usual rule of winner-take-all statewide elections of multi-seat slates of Presidential electors.

I agree largely. You're quite right that I neglected in this discussion (which was a question about who to vote for):

Work for voting machines where your human readable printed ballot only goes in the recounting box by your hand. "optical scan" works fine. touchscreen with an EXTERNAL printout works fine. touchscreen that prints inside a box and you can't tell which votes it wiped out is NOT fine.

Work for IRV/RCV. This won't suddenly happen in national election, but use it in as many local elections as possible.

The electoral college isn't a problem, but winner-take-all electors ARE a problem - and that isn't the way it always was, either.

HOWEVER, I also think that it is possible to have a grassroots movement grow about avoiding blind voting for major parties - and I think the single biggest thing that would convince people would be higher numbers for independent candidates. This might not be EASIER the above, but if someone asks me "how to vote" and not "what to do to reform the electoral system" that's the answer they get. If you can be reasonably assured that your candidate won't win, this is much more effective than 'boycotting the vote'

>>> "make it hard to get anything done" idea had been taken way too far..

This post was long, I didn't want to make it superlong. I completely agree, the Constitution toned it down. In particular it went from "NEVER get anything done" to "only get anything done if there is a lot of consensus, and consensus is hard." But the checks and balances system is still a system primarily of substantial inhibition of anyone actually having a lot of control to do something. It's a great balancing act of "WE are very powerful" and "I can't get anything done"

>>> Its been a feature of American government practically since the adoption of the Constitution,

I believe it's worse now and has steadily been getting worse. More candidates running - and ELECTED based on party and not on positions/policies (even if they might be lies) More votes cast along party lines in opposition to the positions of those same congresspersons. (Not that wheeling and dealing never happened... but now it's happening in a bulk unit.) In short, you used to choose a party to match your positions, now to a much larger extent your positions are chosen match your party.

As recently as Eisenhower we had a president who wasn't strongly affiliated with either party - he has publicly stated he felt like he ought to pick a party to run...

Re:And independents are important!

[DragonWriter]

I believe it's worse now and has steadily been getting worse.

Well, certainly the short-run trend may be worse, though historically large swaths of the country were often, for long periods, one-party zones far worse than today; even with the use of modern analysis to fine-tune gerrymandering and other techniques of locking in partisan advantage, there's more competition in modern elections than in much of the past.

As recently as Eisenhower we had a president who wasn't strongly affiliated with either party

Eisenhower was rather exceptional for his time, not typical of a bygone era of purer politics; he avoided coming up through the machine politics of the day because he was catapulted to prominence by WWII.

What's Important Here

[Anonymous Coward]

http://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/11/ 03/072224

There ya go, sport! Everything you need to know!

Read, and then go out and vote.

It's your vote

[pyite69]

Feel free to waste it if you want.

Personally, I have picked a couple of issues that I like (balance the budget and end the war on drugs). I will support the candidate who has the best position on these issues.

Needless to say, I have been voting for third parties for a LONG time.

Re:Let me answer your question with this statement

[tekiegreg]

Indeed, quite often you find me giving "extra points towards a vote" for taking a stand on an issue rather than being all wishy washy and giving me nothing I can agree or disagree to. I've never found a candidate that is 100% like me but I do appreciate it when they're willing to tell me that they don't agree with me. Honesty doesn't necessarily guarantee a vote, but it goes a long ways....

Yes

[Anonymous Coward]

an uninformed vote is better than not voting at all. I take it, from reading the previous responses, that most /.'s don't regularly vote. The ballot consists of LOTS of different measures that you can vote on by simply reflecting on your experience in general. Do you like how the state government has gone in the past, say, two-to-four years? Vote for re-electing your Governor. Hate how your state has started reminding you of Hogan's Heroes? DON'T vote for the incumbant. This rule of thumb applies for most of the major positions. If THAT'S all you do: cast a vote for your governor, representative, etc. And you ignore all other issues, then that's a whole lot better than not voting at all.

Instead...

[chaoticgeek]

Why don't you read up on the issues, form your own opinions and vote. That makes me mad. I was well informed, more than other peers of mine during the 2004 elections and I was not old enough to vote. Then there were all the people who were old enough to vote but did not because they felt that it would not affect them this year. Or "Oh I don't have the time." I don't care if it is a midterm people should learn about the issues affecting them in today's society and form their own opinion, not one based upon a specific side, but one based on what they all feel is right. I do vote mostly democrat, however when I find something that I just can't agree with I will vote republican or independent. It would be nice if people did this a bit more often then we would not have people voting down party lines. There is a reason why I am listed as a independent.

Maybe I'm an idealist in some respects, but I think that people should not be ignorant and we should have one of the highest voter turnout anywhere because we were built on the idea and philosophy of democracy.

Voting isn't quite that complicated

[slackmaster2000]

First of all, you don't have to vote on every issue on the ballot. I frequently leave items blank if I don't understand the issue well enough. I failed to vote on half of the ballot issues this round, and didn't vote on any local judicial positions. Either I had no opinion in a matter of this sort, or I realized that its real implications were simply over my head, currently.

When it comes to electing representatives, it's simple. There is no way that you're going to find a representative that will vote exactly the way you'd like on every single issue. What you have to do boil everything down to your core values -- what you think are most important to the country and people. I would suspect that one party will more closely match these values than the other, and there you go.

When we elect representatives we're not voting on issues themselves. Well sure, in a way we are, but election-time issues are always blown way out of proportion and are just a small sampling of what's really going to be happening. Besides, the one or two issues we hear about at any given time are not going to make or break the country, even if the candidates would like you to believe so. The real point here is that your ability to make a difference extends well beyond voting day. That so many people are apathetic or ignorant of this is probably one of the major problems of our society. People need to be pestering their representatives all the time, not just during the election. You should be able to find one party who will be more likely to consider your opinions regarding core values more so than the other, or at least make policy that is more similar to your opinions than the other party would. There's your vote. Now be sure to make some phone calls or write a few letters to whichever jackass wins the election when important issues come up in the future.

When the current administration and congress came to power, I noticed a major swing not only in policy and legislation, but also in the general image of our country itself. Without explaining which side of the fence I'm on, this change was drastic enough to prove to me that it does indeed matter who's running the show. The direction of the country in terms of the core values that I believe are more important than all others did change; it didn't do a complete 180, but the change was in my mind significant. Now that I can see this more clearly, I was eager to vote. I don't have complete confidence in those I voted for in all matters. I know that they are going to do many things that I don't agree with. However, they'll at least be more likely to steer the ship somewhat on the course that I think we should be on.

Maybe think of it this way: there's a guy at the office or in your family with views that you find absurd. He's going to vote one way, and this is your chance to cancel him out. :)

And remember, you're not electing leaders, you're electing representatives. I think we've all forgotten this to a certain degree.

invalid assumptions

[roc97007]

I agree that we would prefer informed decisions, but the assumption that your voting neighbors are more informed is often going to be false. So many are woefully ignorant of the actual issues -- else why is the last-minute hyperbole effective?

Even if you don't know everything about every issue, there's probably some issues or offices you do know enough about. I tend to leave blank the issues or offices about which I can't scrape together an opinion. That's usually confined to vague local offices with candidates I've never heard of.

Ron

Of course not

[Anonymous Coward]

Voting for a candidate implies you believe he is competent to do the job, which is rarely true.

Don't vote.

It only encourages continuation of a stupid political system, democracy, which believes everyone is entitled to an opinion.

Clearly, some poeple's opinions, like mine, are worth far more than other people's...

Re:Of course not

[Anonymous Coward]

The human race will destroy itself anyway.

Who cares...

strategies for stupidity management

[doom]

We're all grossly ignorant, but some of us are arrogant enough to think that our ignorance is better than the other guys.

It's all about coming up with strategies for managing our stupidity...

Representative democracy itself is a hack for dealing with the limitations of individual citizens.

(What do you think you need a representative for, anyway? Let's have a governing body composed of all the citizens, who vote on things directly! You don't want to hassle with that? What, are you lazy or something? If you're too stupid to be your own congressional reprsentative, maybe you should just stay home.)

If this is the guideline...

[TeraBill]

I don't want to vote Republican or Democrat, only to find out later I totally disagree with something a candidate stands for.

Well, if that is the way one should decide where not to give your vote, virtually nobody would ever vote, since I cannot imagine that anyone is in 100% agreement with the views of any candidate. I cannot envision a candidate where at some point I'm probably not going to think they are on the wrong side of the issue. In fact, it is annoying how often that happens with all of the people I have ever given my vote. At the end of the day, you have to try to pick the best of the available candidates and sometimes I think that voting for the lesser of two (or more) evils is the way we try to nudge the future candidates choices. So far, that strategy isn't working to well. As for completely uninformed voters, it is a mixed bag at best. And as someone else has said, uniformed is in the eyes of the beholder. I'm sure plenty of people feel informed when they are really not so much.

Funniest thing about independants?

[Ogemaniac]

A recent study found that most of them are MORE partisan than people who claim to be Republicans or Democrats. About two-thirds of self-proclaimed "independants" are self-delusional.

Re:Funniest thing about independants?

[is as us Infinite]

A recent study which I won't cite because it might refute my claim states that about two-thirds of statistics are completely made up. Another study would seem to correlate that fact, stating that during periods of electioneering there is a consistent onslaught of made up studies. I won't cite my sources because it's better you take my word for it. Especially on /., because nobody here cares about reading those _boring_ studies discussing sociological trends.

A recent study shows that that last bit is a joke, for those of you with no sense for sarcasm.

(;

a 2 party sytem is far of a democracy

[PermanentMarker]

Ask yourself what's a democracy was it invented for a kind of money run. In which 51% of votes could beat 49% For the goodnes of all tehese people ??? (or just for the money power of this electable person) I think you do wise not to vote on any of them But you should have vote on someone else, a third party perhaps there is a small one, if not get some attention to people where democracy stands for that is not about the 1% more. Or the milions spend on election marketing.

Not Voting

[k12techman]

You have a civic obligation to become informed and vote. Democracy only works when "the people" keep themselves informed and take action when the government needs correction.

Not being involved in politics is not an excuse. As a citizen of this nation, you are obligated and required to be involved in the political process. Inform yourself and go vote!

For crying out loud...

[Goonie]

What the government does affects you and your family. Your parents elderly? Guess what, the government helps pay for perscription drugs - and pays for a significant fraction of the world's medical research. Like to visit national parks? Governments manage them. Care about how much tax you pay? Yep, government. Care about whether your friends in the army are sent off to war or not? Government. Drive a car? The roads you drive on were largely built by the government with your tax dollars. And then there's social issues. Think the Supreme Court got it wrong on Roe vs. Wade? Wish that it would get overturned - or, conversely, does the thought of women losing their right to choose chill you to the bone? Well, guess what; the President appoints Supreme Court justices, and they're approved by the Senate. Furthermore, candidates are not all the same - not only in terms of policies, but in terms of experience and all-round competence. This gets more the case as you get into the less and less prominent elected positions.

Whether you realise it or not, politics affects you. It's in your interests to do a little bit of research, and then make a decision based on that.

Re:Let me answer your question with this statement

[cheezit]

At the end of the day, a candidate can be as liberal as anyone, but if they run as a Republican, they will add one to the number required for a majority...and the majority defines the agenda. Same goes for a "family values" pro-business Democrat.

So it does matter, probably more than anything else.

You misunderstand the point of voting

[snowwrestler]

I, personally, am happier hearing that people went and just voted according to whim than hearing that people went and voted straight ticket (I find the odds of each candidate at all levels of government for a given party just happening to line up with your opinions on each issue at each level of government to be quite low).

Have you thought very hard about what you just said? Because with only a handful of candidates (at the most) available to choose from in any particular race, I guarantee that none of them will line up with your opinions on each issue. By such criteria, no one would ever vote for anyone except for the candidates voting for themselves.

The problem is a fundamental misunderstanding of how the nation is governed. It's governed between the elections, not by the elections. The point of voting is not to get someone into office who agrees with you, but to get someone into office who is more likely to be influenced by you when you contact them later about your most important issues.

With that understanding, the straight ticket can make a lot of sense, if your pet issue is addressed by the national platform of that party. When that's the case, the party platform becomes a club you can wield against your elected officials. For instance if the most important issue to you is keeping abortion legal, it makes sense to vote straight Democratic. Pro-choice is in the Democratic Party Platform.

Re:Let me answer your question with this statement

[wass]

I think it's also very important to consider the history of the vote. Wars have been fought, people have been killed, even recently in our country's history, to ensure that everybody would have the right to vote. Eg, huge efforts were exerted, in the face of adversity, when women and blacks demanded they have the right to vote. And that means the same rights as everybody else, without the discriminatory grandfathering clauses that were originally allowed in the Jim Crow laws, etc.

So if you're too lazy to vote, or to research at least some of the candidates positions, you're really shitting all over the efforts and lives lost of people that DID fight for the right to make sure that you have the right to vote.

Anyway, IMHO if you don't vote you really don't have any leg to stand on to complain about any governmental laws. If Congress decides to attack Iraq or invade North Korea, and you get drafted, DON'T COMPLAIN if you didn't vote. If Congress decides to massively raise your taxes, DON'T COMPLAIN if you didn't vote. If Congress passes laws allowing eavesdropping on all your emails and web browses, DON'T COMPLAIN if you didn't vote. Etc, etc.

Nobody knows all the issues of the candidates themselves, their opponents have teams of staffers who can dig through mounds of legislation to find some obscure clause in some prior vote to say "Candidate X voted AGAINST clean forests" or something like that.

In a nutshell, GET OUT AND VOTE!, regardless of whether you consider yourself informed or not. Democracy (yada yada, representative republic yada yada) is the people's voice, and some percentage of uninformed people would still be representative of the populace.

But if you consider yourself uninformed, ask yourself if you like how things are going in the country. Consider Iraq, Social Security, Geek Issues that are brought up on Slashdot, etc. If you like how things are going, then vote for the same party in power. If you want change, vote for someone else.

One final comment - Voting breeds more informed voters. Meaning that once you start to vote you'll start paying more attention to issues that matter. Hell, you might even start writing to your Congressman about issues you care about (they really listen to their constituency, especially when they're up for re-election). It's kind of like if you're in the market for a pickup truck, you start to notice all the kinds of pickup trucks around your neighborhood that you never would have seen before.

2+ Reasons to vote

[Orig_Club_Soda]

1) You have a 50% chance of being right (hard to beat those odds)
2) Your uncast vote means someone elses vote represents you - or, in otherwords, counts more than one vote.
3) Ballot language is usually clear enough to know if the measure at least leans your way.

mod parent up!

[Bob-taro]

...even if I fundamentally agree with the measures. The Constitution is not a dumping ground for piecemeal amendments ...

That's a very good point. I applaud your conviction. It not only has to be the right thing to do, it has to be the right way to do it!

No

[tezbobobo]

Whilst most math inclined people would say that any vote would cancel other uninformed votes, any political scientist would argue that it is impossible to act in a vacume and that no vote could be uniformed. I would point you to the works of Baudrillard and Derida.

Duverger's Law

[snark23]

Quite right.

From a game theory standpoint, your best* strategy in our voting system is to cast a vote AGAINST a candidate:
  1. Identify your least favorite candidate with a chance of winning
  2. Vote for the guy who is most likely to beat him

Now, before you Libertarian/Green folks reply with idealistic "Vote your conscience!" idiocy, do everyone a favor and read up on:
  Tactical voting
  Gibbard-Satterthwaite Theorem
  Duverger's Law

* best = most likely to obtain the outcome that most closely approximates your actual preferences

Re:Duverger's Law

[carlivar]

"Vote your conscience!" idiocy

That sound you just heard was the Founding Fathers rolling over in their graves.

Re:Duverger's Law

[Anne_Nonymous]

A vote for the lesser of two evils, is a vote for evil.

Re:Duverger's Law

[snark23]

If I told you that there was a "best" strategy for Tic-Tac-Toe, and that any other strategy was idiotic, would you say the designers of Tic-Tac-Toe are rolling in their graves? Would you insist on playing losing strategies just to prove an idealistic point?

The Founding Fathers were smart guys; they would agree with me.

Voting your conscience is a naive (read: bad) strategy, unless your conscience happens to be a candidate with a chance of winning. I'm sorry to sound cynical, but it is mathematical fact.

If the Libertarians and the Greens actually understood this, they would spend their effort trying to CHANGE THE VOTING SYSTEM instead of contiually running candidates doomed to failure*.

* worse than failure, actually.. as with Perot/92 and Nader/2000

Re:Duverger's Law

[jawtheshark]

Yeah, but they didn't have a degree in game theory and relied on common sense ;-)

Re:Duverger's Law

[Anonymous Coward]

This is only true if the election is a one-of event, but elections happen every two years. Let's look at the strategy of the major parties:

D - Wins, less than 50% of vote
R - Loses
L - Loses, but more votes than the margin of victory

Next election, both D and R realize that they cannot assure themselves of victory unless they attract L voters. Both parties therefore have an incentive to incorporate as much of L's platform as is compatible with their existing voters.

Now, let's look at your method:

D - Wins, greater than 50% of the vote
R - Loses

The only incentive for R is to either depress D's turnout in the next election (go negative early) or to find some way of increasing his own turnout (hot button issues) -- simply mimicking the winner won't do any good. D's only strategy is to prevent this -- go negative early and try to see if there are any other voters they can scrape up. They are far less likely to advance new proposals, because they are risky and don't have the proven capacity to get out the vote.

Re:Duverger's Law

[snark23]

Ah, a different sort of tactical voting =)

Re:Duverger's Law

[treeves]

No it's not. The alternative is to not vote at all, or vote third party, which, as has been explained, is the same thing. And that does not produce a less evil outcome. Voting so as to minimize evil is not voting for evil.

Re:Duverger's Law

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong. Voting third party sends a big "Fuck You" to the Republicrats, where as not voting at all indicates apathy to them. Voting to minimize evil is still a vote for evil.

An academic paper

[Anonymous Coward]

Here is an interesting mathematical proof under a simple but reasonable model that shows uninformed voting hurts, not helps. The title of the paper is, "If you are not informed, don't vote".: http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~magdon/ps/unpub/vote.pdf

If nothing else...

[Kaenneth]

A random vote would help obscure what others voted for.

As an extreme example, Say only 2 voters turned out for a particular race, and both of them voted for person A, so person B's goons looking at the voter rolls saw that only those two showed up, and since they both voted against B, they can effectivly intimidate them. But if a third person showed up, and voted for B, the goons would have no way to know which of the three supported their guy.

That silly example aside, the ballots often have summaries of issues, so easy choices like tax increases, leagalizing fireworks, etc can be decided at the polls themselves.

Re:Let me answer your question with this statement

[srussell]

Informed-ness is in the eye of the beholder.

A-men. Somebody mod this person up. Way up.

Here's a good example: I'm a democrat. It is my belief that anybody who chooses to vote Republican is woefully mis-informed (which is as bad, or worse, than uninformed). Therefore, by the rule that "uninformed people shouldn't vote," IMHO all Republicans should stay home.

That said, a better answer is: inform yourself, and then vote. Or don't; it's your choice. If you feel too uninformed to be comfortable making a decision, then skip those issues -- there's no penalty for not voting for some of the ballot measures. However, you'll probably have an opinion about some of the stuff on the ballot, so cast a vote on just those issues.

Oh, one last thing: you'll want to really evaluate what your values are and try to determine whether the party really represents your values. For example, I think it would be difficult for somebody to try to pass this administration/congress off as being "fiscally conservative." So if that's why you have Republican leanings, then I'd strongly recommend that you think twice about voting Republican. However, if you're socially conservative... well, I'd take a hard look at your party anyway. A number of Republican congresscritters have recently resigned in disgrace or are under investigation over ethical (Tom Delay, Bob Ney) and moral (Mark Foley) issues. According to Congresspedia, 15 Republican representatives are under federal investigation, vs. 4 Democrats. According to a Wikipedia article, there are 20 national-level elected officials under investigation or found guilty, vs. 6 Democrats.

--- SER

It's bad either way

[Theaus]

If an uninformed voter would be more likely to voter for a more Charismatic person, or lets simply say the Marketing or Marketability of a candidate or position (independent of the particular merits). Unfortunately it is alos true that smaller electorates tend to skew to the extremes, as apathy usually affects centrists and moderates before ideologues or people whom are directly influenced by the outcomes (lobbyists and special interests). P.S. Who's up for a new 3rd party...I know I am. Maybe something like: I don't care about Left or Right, but whatever will work and is worth the cost. Plenty of room for debate in that spectrum without ideologic blinders. Ideology has always been a substitute for thinking in my opinion.

Vote for or against incumbants

[scruffy]

If you like the way things are going, vote for incumbants. If not, vote against them. Surely, you are that informed.

If you want to make perfect decisions, then you are overthinking the problem. All you can ever do is a greedy algorithm, make a locally optimal choice with limited information.

Re:Are you kidding?

[Anonymous Coward]

A republican troll? Who knew?

Simple political quiz:

[Ogemaniac]

If you can't answer the following question (without searching Google or the like), please stay home.

What are the five largest items in the federal budget?

Four out of five is a pass, and you can vote. Anything less, and your vote is so mis-informed to as to be dangerous.

Answers appear in my reply

Re:Simple political quiz:

[funwithBSD]

I ran out after Intrest on Debt, Military and Social Security.

Medicare?

uninformed?

[rjdegraaf]

"I don't pay attention to politics at all, and so I will not be voting in today's elections."

Didn't you hear about:
- a war started on false claims
- a war going nowhere
- torture, a accepted interrogation method
- civil liberties rights going down the toilet
- ...

Boy, you must be braindead!

It's not hard to get informed

[Squirmy McPhee]

All it takes is a few minutes at the web site of your local newspaper to get informed. Candidates for major offices like Governor or Senator will often have a good bit of information available, but most candidates simply have a few short statements about where they stand and that's about it. Plus, I suspect you're more informed on major and highly visible issues than you think. I got informed for today's election in about 30 minutes yesterday, and most of that time was spent reading up on candidates for Drain Commissioner and the like.

I have to admit, thought, that in my neck of the woods at least it was probably a bit easier to get informed this time around, as the candidates for most every office were so busy hurling insults at one another that they hardly bothered to let the electorate know where they stand....

A truly random vote wouldn't be so bad

[roystgnr]

Of course not. An uninformed vote will be insignificantly different from a random vote, and I don't think anyone would encourage you to go to your polling place and flip a coin to determine each vote. In fact, I suspect that the very same people insisting you go vote would be appalled if you did that.

You're right that a random vote is much better than a misinformed vote - if a million non-voters decided to go the polls and start flipping coins, they'd basically just add gaussian noise with a 500 vote standard deviation to the results. That's not a good thing, but it's not going to make any long term difference in election results.

Unfortunately, human beings aren't as good at picking random numbers as coins are. If a million non-voters decided to go to the polls and start voting ignorantly, they'd be adding their own conscious and subconscious biases to the vote. Perhaps those biases would go to the guy who had more money to spend on commercials and signs, or to the taller candidate, or to the candidate who played dirtier tricks, but however it worked out I expect the results wouldn't be good - any such bias is likely to eventually benefit candidates who are good at running for office, at the expense of candidates who would merely be good at holding office.

A party-line vote is just as bad. I'm a registered Republican (and just voted for 5 or 6 R's), but I think the Republicans Uber Alles mentality that's infected most of their leadership is ruining this country. I'm fairly libertarian (and just voted for 8 or 9 L's), but a few of the Libertarian candidates on my ballots this year clearly would be incompetent in office, and a few of the competent ones were no better than spoilers in races ruined by the plurality voting system. I voted mostly for Democrats this year, but I think an all-D federal government wouldn't be much better than the current mess. If everyone always voted a straight-party ticket we'd never have gridlock, which in my lifetime has been much better at running the government than any unopposed party.

I think the best you can do if you want to cast a full ballot without spending hours researching candidates is to:
1. Vote against the incumbent. In federal elections this may hurt your district, but it's good for the country as a whole.
2. Vote for the non-Republicrat candidate. Even if you're not a fan of the Libertarians or Greens, a strong showing for them might get the parties in power to look at non-plurality voting systems to avoid having their voting base splintered.

And if neither of those things are possible, the only remaining good advice I can give comes from a Heinlein character:
"If this is too blind for your taste, consult some well-meaning fool (there is always one around) and ask his advice. Then vote the other way. This enables you to be a good citizen (if such is your wish) without spending the enormous amount of time that truly intelligent exercise of the franchise requires."

what's in it for me?

[asterion]

Sadly, many voters have the attitude: what is the government going to do for me? How much free shit can I score? Most people will act out of rational self-interest, and when you can get some free shit, it's only rational to line up and get some.

Others vote for impossibilities: I want universal peace and love and understanding! I want free health care! Blah, blah. You may be "informed" but still attached to a naive, incorrect worldview. You can be "informed" and still be an idiot. When people insist on the impossible, what they get is the disastrous.

So OK, let's make sure everybody votes, no matter how stupid, lazy, naive, self-centered or alive they are. But folks in the military should get to vote twice.

Re:what's in it for me?

[cr0sh]

But folks in the military should get to vote twice.

Actually, today, anybody can vote twice - at least I know it can work this way in Arizona. Basically, you live and have residence in another state (and a drivers license, and such - to be on the rolls), and you winter here. Request and fill out an absentee ballot for your home state, then on election day, show up with your "two forms of ID" here in AZ (to keep those pesky illegals out, natch!), and vote again!

The question is whether you would get caught or not appearing at both polls - however, appearing (and signing the poll book) doesn't mean you voted, it just means you probably did. Wear some gloves to avoid leaving fingerprints on the ballot, or wipe it down, and there isn't any way to prove anything after the fact.

Yes, it is illegal poll rigging - but currently, there isn't any way to combat it. The only way to really combat it would be to have a national database of voters, and who voted, and when, recorded in this database. The problem is you just know that wouldn't be all they would record - thus you get into all sorts of privacy issues and such...

Fortunately, the problem is a small (that is, the number of absentee ballots and dual voting is done only by a tiny percentage of the total number of voters) - however, if voter turnout drops even more...

Americans take their vote for Granted

[Carlyle]

I'm a Canadian, and a problem I see with American voters is that a good portion of the population take their vote for granted. Americans in general live a good life, and therefore they don't have as much a stake in keeping informed about the choices their vote provides them. It bugs me when I see that people can't be bothered to vote for one reason or another, simply out of apathy. It's simply too much effort for them.

I've watched as you Americans have had one civil liberty after another stripped away from you, and can't believe you've put up with it. Your politicians work less than a 100 days in the year, the rest of the time they spend raising election funds. The funds they collect are from big business, and those big businesses write the laws passed in your government. You let your government get away with passing nasty legislation that is packaged with legislation for paying your troops or what have you.

You either vote Republican, vote Democrat, or don't vote at all. If someone votes for someone who is not a democrat or republican they are smeared as wasting their votes. It's a comfortable position for big business, since they only need to make payoffs to candidates in two parties.

I wish more Americans would put some thought into their vote, instead of taking their democracy for granted.

Vote Informed Vote Intelligent

[Anonymous Coward]

Let the informed and the intelligent vote. There is absolutely no point to flipping coins when it comes to who runs our government.

If you were equally ignorant about whether or not you could swim, you wouldn't flip a coin to decide whether or not to jump in the ocean, would you? The safe thing to do is to stay out of the water, not take a chance.

So if you can't be bother to LEARN who you should vote for, stay at home, grab a bag of cheetos and watch the results on TV.

old people vote; politicians don't screw with them

[evilmousse]

old people vote; politicians don't dare screw with them.
young people don't vote; they get the butt end of legislation.

so yes, it's worth it just to say "cater to my demographic."

if you're concerned about making uninformed decisions, either get informed, or vote for yourself. That way you've not impacted what you're afraid to uninformedly impact, yet you've stood up to be counted.

Why not literacy tests?

[swb]

Can illiterates (watch, I probably misspelled it!) vote in a constructive way without merely voting for a race, gender or some other highly manipulatable symbol, or simply voting for a party they feel some relationship with (ie, the one that hands out free stuff)?

I'm quite torn, actually. In some ways, requiring a literacy test seems smart -- since people who cannot read or write are definitely not informed in a constructive way and only reinforce all the nasty symbolism and BS in our campaigns, yet denying them the franchise smells suspicously like an oligarchy and opens the door for new, more restrictive ways of ensuring the outcome the elites want.

Anyone live for an extensive period of time in a country that's both democratic and has a substantial number of people who can't read or write and notice anything substantive about the way candidates get out the message vs. how it's done in a supposedly literate country (like the US, with lies an attack ads?).

Always vote.

[BigZaphod]

Even if you don't know anything about politics you can still easily vote against the incumbents. It's usually better to get old people out of office than to keep them in. Change is good for the government - they just hate it something terrible. Not voting is essentially a vote for the incumbent and vote for the status-quo. Do you like the incumbent or like everything the way it is now? If so - then go vote for them and make it real! If not, then go make sure they know by voting for someone else! Just vote, dammit.

(Sadly I recently moved and didn't think to fill out the paperwork in time - so I can't vote this time around without driving over 100 miles to my old precinct. *sigh* Stupid.)

How is this even an idea that occurs to you??!?

[riprjak]

...And I apologise for the soapbox rant Im about to engage in.

Your forefathers, more than most, paid a dear price for the freedoms you so blithely dismiss. In a democratic society, we have a moral imperative to BE INFORMED about our choices and to VOTE based on this information. Not voting is a dangerous choice, it says you dont care how you are governed!

Sure, Im an aussie and voting is compulsory here (except for local government elections, and they perform little useful function); but it is compulsory for good reason, to remind us that not-voting isnt a choice that can be tolerated in a responsible society. Imagine, if you can, that a democratically elected government went on to overthrow democracy and institute a facist state that attemts to take over the world, imagine further if you DIDNT have a say in that election; its bad enough that people WANTED that government, worse if you stood passively by and let them have it...

If you have such an extreme case or merely a bad or ineffective government and you didnt vote, you are as responsible for the problem as someone who voted FOR that government. Also, if you choose not to vote, you cant then reasonably bitch about the outcome of an election (as noted, you are actually RESPONSIBLE for the outcome); if you dont want a say, you cant have a say. The old proverb of evil triumphing when good men do nothing is of particular relevance here.

Finally, if you inform yourself of all of the choices and dont like them enough to choose one; you can run yourself! Well, in a truly representative democracy you can...

Anyway, soapbox going away now... I just get fired up when people try to disguise ignorance and apathy as a valid choice, particularly when their country is so insistant that other countries adopt democracy; how can you sell a product you dont respect? If you dont all get your voice heard and weighed evenly, why bother?

err!
jak.

Customized Election Button

[mikeparlapi]

I just found this awesome website that lets you customize your own election button onscreen. The possibilites are endless and hilarious. Go nuts and enjoy! Custom Election Button at: http://www.imagechef.com/ic/make.jsp?tid=Election+ Campaign+Button or, type 'Election Button' into Google and hit 'I'm Feeling Lucky'

Voting is leads to paying attention

[CraigV]

Once I first voted, I started paying attention to the actions of the politicians I voted for. After a few eye-opening mistaken votes, I started to really pay attention.

Of course, it helped that I later spent 20 years near Washington, DC, where the local news was politics and my neighbors were deep into it.

Answers

[Ogemaniac]

1: Social Security - 21%
2: Defense - 19%
3: Medicare - 14%
4: Interest on the debt - 9%
5: Medicaid - 7%

I think these numbers are from 2005. Defense is obviously a bit higher than "usual" due to the Iraq war.

But that's the POINT of voting.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

I realize that the seemingly correct thing to do is to stay at home. But all that does is ensure the tyranny of those with an agenda.

But that's the POINT!

Voting is NOT to insure that the people elected are popular.

Voting is to stabilize the government by predicting the outcome of a civil war well enough that the losers won't try to reverse the result by violence.

That's ALL it's about. And that's why elections are so full of dirty tricks and backstabbing, why the US has only had one major internal war in over two centuries, and why it DOESN'T stop assasination.

If "those with an agenda" are willing to fight for it (with real fighting), and the rest of the population is not not opposed enough to be willing to fight even harder to block it, they SHOULD get their agenda through. The choice then is between them getting their agenda through with or without a war.

= = = = =

The responsible thing for the original poster to do, if there's even ONE office race or proposition on the ballot that matters strongly to him, is to go vote on THAT, and leave the rest of the ballot blank.

You DON'T have to vote on any race or question where you don't have a strong opinion. And you really shouldn't vote when you don't know what you're voting on or your preference is so weak that you aren't willing to fight - or support a fight - to back up your choice.

being "informed"

[circletimessquare]

if you are informed or not is a subjective measurement, not an objective one in politics

being "educated" or being "informed" on subjects like physics or mathematics is very much an objective rote truth. in these hard sciences, there is simply hard truth that you can be educated towards or not. but in soft sciences, and certainly in politics, being "informed" simply means being indoctrinated into a given point of view

now you could say that being informed simply means you know where people stand on the issues

well what issues are those? the very roster of issues you consider important or not is a subjective list

i voted today, and i don't know where some of the candidates stand on euthanasia. is that important i know that before i vote? well how important is that issue to me? to someone else it is very important... ok, so they would consider me "uninformed"? am i really uninformed or just not that interested?

so since you can't define objectively what being "informed" means, the question is pointless

look: just trust the common man. this whole fear of being informed/ uninformed reeks of elitist fud. if we honeslty thought being educated was so important, we would have a panel of experts decide criminal court proceedings rather than a simple jury of our peers. but we trust a jury of common people rather than "experts" because being an expert most of the time goes hand in hand with a need to serve an agenda or a cause which has nothing to do with the specific case they must judge before them

same with voting and being "informed". i trust the common man off the street to vote properly way more than i do an "informed" "expert", as that really just translates into someone with an agenda to push which is not inline with the well-being of the common man

the common man has no agenda to push, save his own well-being, which is the whole point of democracy in the first place

and that really gets down the whole point of democracy: it is meant to serve the common man, according to the common man. tgherefore the only measure of what "informed" could ever come to mean is what the common man considers to be "informed" enough to vote. all benchmarks or measurements of what being "informed" means beggins with the common man, and ends with the cmoon man

elitism need not apply. which is the whole point of democracy

Let's look at the data...

[run2stone]

...appears that this condition doesn't stop a significant percentage of the population from voting. So... answer is yes by majority action.

Re: 3rd Party - Libertarian - send a message!

[AusIV]

I typically follow the rules you've described for voting. If I have an explicit reason to vote a certain way, I vote that way. Otherwise, I vote libertarian or leave it blank. If I'm not informed on an issue, I should leave the decision to people who are informed. I have friends who tell me voting libertarian is a wasted vote, but I disagree (you didn't really address why it sends a more powerful message than not voting, so I'm going to).

Every election, you hear people saying it's their patriotic duty to go out and vote. I disagree. Democracy only functions under an educated electorate, therefore I view it as your patriotic duty to become educated on the issues at hand. Hopefully after becoming educated, you will be motivated to go vote. If not, you're still sending a message by not voting. Usually that message will be interpreted as indifference, and I guess that's what it is.

But I try to send a more significant message than "I don't care," because I do. Politicians are always trying to figure out how to get (re)elected. By voting Libertarian, I send them a clear cut message of what they need to do in order to get my vote - stop expanding the federal government, stop restricting personal liberties, stop creating programs that give my tax dollars to people who choose not to work, stop subsidizing crops that we over produce - essentially I don't want the government telling me what to do with my checkbook or my zipper.

I don't know that I believe everything would be hunky-dory if the libertarians were in charge, but I do want to move that direction, and voting Libertarian tells politicians what direction to go if they want my vote.

Voting is easy

[Darth Liberus]

Seriously, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to participate in the political process. Just lay down a few rules for yourself and stick with them and take a little time to research some of the more important political positions / ballot initiatives. Your vote won't kill anyone, but it is your $0.02 and as a fellow citizen of this great country... I want your $0.02. It's the American way.

Personally, I follow a few simple rules:

• For important positions, I vote Democrat, unless I hate the Democrat that's running (happens a lot, actually)... then I'll vote Republican, or sometimes I'll just vote for myself.
• For positions I don't understand, I vote for the person with the job that seems most qualified... i.e. the chemical engineer probably knows how to run the water district better than the massage therapist / holistic healer. If nobody seems qualified, I vote for myself.
• Laws in general suck, so all ballot propositions default to a "no" vote. If I understand the issue and agree that it needs to change, I'll vote yes.
• I always vote to throw more money at roads, parks, education, and civic services like cops and firemen. We may one day actually fully fund such things, in which case I'll start voting no on such bond measures.
• Any other bond measures get an automatic "no." See above for the approved list of things to spend money on.

No matter how uninformed your vote is...

[ENOENT]

there is somebody out there with even less information who is not only voting, but trying to convince others that he's right.

So go ahead and vote.

Abstinence is the best protection

[tyler_larson]

This election, I voted on the on the candidates and propositions, but abstained (left them blank blank) on deciding whether to keep or oust the laundry-list of judges and other unrecognized names. My reasoning is that while I know enough to vote on the issues that matter, I know nothing (and care little) about the the head of the school board. It there's strong reason to vote either way, then I figure that those familiar with the issue will do so; I don't want to dilute the potency of their vote by casting an a vote at random.

In the previous vote, I had simply voted for "what sounded good" on the issues I'd never heard of, and as a result ended up voting the wrong way on some important issues because the wording on the ballot was severely deceptive (though that's a topic for another discussion).

Re:Abstinence is the best protection

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, it's quite easy:

Vote NO on all propositions - we don't need even more laws and bureaucracies.

Vote to OUST all existing officials, or against all incumbents. They were probably doing a shitty job anyway, so let's get some new blood in there. Anything to get rid of the career politicians.

Re:Abstinence is the best protection

[westlake]

I know nothing (and care little) about the the head of the school board.

Then you will have no cause for complaint when "intelligent design" is taught as biology, video surveillance systems are ramped up to Supermax proportions and Office 2007 is introduced into the classroom.

Re:Abstinence is the best protection

[edward2020]

Keep taling the good word anonymous coward!

Re:Abstinence is the best protection

[westlake]

Actually, it's quite easy

No, it's not. Nor was it ever meant to be.

Vote NO on all propositions - we don't need even more laws and bureaucracies.

Propositions are as close you get to direct democracy in the United States.

In a country of 300 million people you do not get and you will never get the libertarian fantasy of small government. Power simply passes to other corporate entities that are able and willing to wield it.

Vote to OUST all existing officials, or against all incumbents...Anything to get rid of the career politicians.

And where do you suppose the politician learns his trade? Only in the movies of Frank Capra does one come into the game as a political innocent.

Re:Abstinence is the best protection

[Anonymous Coward]

but abstained (left them blank blank) on deciding whether to keep or oust the laundry-list of judges and other unrecognized names.

Judges should not be politicians. Their job is to decide the outcome of each particular case on its merits. One can not trust a judge to make a fair decision if they have to worry about whether or not they will be re-elected. For that reason, I always vote for the incumbant judges. If a judge is somehow abusing their authority or otherwise not doing their job it should be up to congress to kick them out of office. Such a policy insulates judges from the inflamed clutches of public opinion.

Re:Abstinence is the best protection

[Mark Maughan]

3 of my propositions were to remove obsolete law.

Many of my local officials do a damn fine job and some have terrible challengers.

Idiotic thinking like yours is one reason why US democracy sucks.

Re:Abstinence is the best protection

[Panzergheist]

"Then you will have no cause for complaint when "intelligent design" is taught as biology, video surveillance systems are ramped up to Supermax proportions and Office 2007 is introduced into the classroom."

Offtopic, but great! Since the Big Bang is a logically impossible explanation for the beginning of the universe (It does explain the beginning of _this_ universe_.) I say leave all options open.

Ramped up video surveillance in the schools would be a Very Good Thing (for extremely large values of very good).

And Office 2007 in the classroom? About damn time. The more people who friggin' learn to properly use any computing application is another that I won't have to coddle in the workplace.

Re:Abstinence is the best protection

[Anonymous Coward]

"5, Insightful"? This level of argument works for people who have left the grade school playground?

Let us as adults think about who should be barred from the discussion of these important points..... not a long list, is it?

Re:Abstinence is the best protection

[phiwum]

Then you will have no cause for complaint when "intelligent design" is taught as biology, video surveillance systems are ramped up to Supermax proportions and Office 2007 is introduced into the classroom.

Oh, bullhonkies. There is no good argument that failing to vote implies one cannot complain.

Whether or not I vote, I can damn well complain when my government makes bad choices. Indeed, complaining is a heck of a lot more effective than voting. Writing letters, petitioning and so on is a lot more likely to change things than my single vote out of hundreds, thousands or millions.

Yours is a familiar claim, but I have yet to see any good argument for it.

Re:Abstinence is the best protection

[3vi1]

By this logic, the people who go to the school can't complain either - since they aren't old enough to vote. That's ridiculous.

It's unlikely that either candidate would have said "I'm for making your kids use Office 2007" either. You can't complain if you didn't feel strongly for either candidate, when the guy who wins starts some kind of asshattery?

Re:Abstinence is the best protection

[npietraniec]

Judges are actually quite important, you'll probably agree if you're ever dragged to court.

I spent an hour deciding who I was going to vote for by going over the ballot I downloaded from my county's website.

Gee, that was hard.

To the original "ask slashdot" posted - In the time it takes you to type up "dear slashdot, my mom says I should vote. What should I DO!?1??2!!1" you could probably have figured out who to vote for. This isn't rocket science.

AC/Late

[Anonymous Coward]

While I realize this post has little chance to be seen, I just want to point out that some states - Oregon, for example - have laws that involve the percentage of people voting. According to Oregon law, taxes cannot be changed unless 50% of the voters in an election agree to do it - AND 50% of the registered voters actually vote in the election. This so-called "double majority" has caused problems a few times in the past; some very good tax increases (for libraries and the like) overwhelmingly voted as "yes" have failed - due to low turnout.

No excuse for being uninformed

[Anonymous Coward]

If you have enough time to read and post on slashdot, you have enough time to be informed about the candidates and the issues. If you don't make the effort, then you're just irresponsible.

You should vote, here's why

[Colin Smith]

1. Not voting isn't a neutral action, it helps the incumbent.

2. Even if you do know every policy of all of candidates, you're not going to agree with all of the policies of any one candidate. This is a feature of the electoral system folding politics into two parties. Until the electoral system is reformed the best you can possibly do is vote on broad general principles.

Re:You should vote, here's why

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

1. Not voting isn't a neutral action, it helps the incumbent.

Huh?

Re:You should vote, here's why

[Arker]

2. Even if you do know every policy of all of candidates, you're not going to agree with all of the policies of any one candidate. This is a feature of the electoral system folding politics into two parties. Until the electoral system is reformed the best you can possibly do is vote on broad general principles.

You can't even do that, since the two parties have no broad general principles, aside from the ones they agree completely on, of course. If you happen to live in a voting district with a particular renegade candidate you might be an exception, but they're scarce.

Re:You should vote, here's why

[Bush Pig]

Every citizen has a moral obligation to be well informed, then to vote on the basis of that. Of course, there's an intersection between the information and previous prejudices acquired through the skin.

Re:You should vote, here's why

[Shaper_pmp]

1. Why? It's not like in the event of a draw the incumbent stays in - either there's a clear winner, a recount, a court case or Fox news decides, right?

Not voting benefits/harms both runners equally. Now, the incumbent often has an advantage, but that's just because people recognise him (better the devil you know). If those uneducated voters who'd vote in the same guy again simply because they recognise him instead stayed at home and sat on their thumbs on voting day, the incumbent's advantage would be reduced, not increased. Uneducated votes decrease, meaning educated votes have proportionately more weight.

2. Indeed. Unless you really have no interest in politics, or the "general principles" of both parties are equally attractive to you, in which case you should simply not vote.

Voting without understanding who you're voting for is like 300 million people sitting in a car all snatching at the wheel to try to get somewhere. If you can get over the childish insistence on being "the one who decides where you're going" you'd probably be better off in the long run sitting back and letting people who knows how to drive do the driving.

This even works when the choices seem against your preference in the long run. Ask a hundred people what they'd like from a candidate, and most will say "lower taxes" and "increased safety/security". If everyone gets what they want the country would be a bankrupt police state within a couple of elections[1].

Of course, certain choices a government can make (running up huges debts, wars) may be bad for you in the short term and the long term... but when this happens you'll have a preference for one candidate (or rather, an antipreference for the other), so point 2. will no longer apply, and you can vote with a clean conscience.

There's nothing magical about "everyone's mistakes cancelling out" - sure hopefully, if stupidity is divided 50-50 between supporters of different parties they'll cancel out... but even if this happens they're still diluting the votes of the people who do care, and who do have a clue.

Think of it like this: You can add acid to a cake and you can add alkali. You can also add a dollop of cake-mixture, but only if you know enough about cake-making to mix it correctly yourself (and most/many people don't).

Sure, if anyone who wants to can throw in a cupful of either acid of alkali then eventually with enough people the cake won't burn your mouth and it won't dissolve your jawbone. However, that doesn't mean it's as good as a cake where the fuckwits abstained and the qualified chefs had a greater hand in the outcome.

To be clear: it's vitally important that anyone who wants to can vote - this is the essence of democracy. It's actually harmful when people are forced or pressured into making uneducated votes, as these don't reflect any meaningful relevent opinion and only serve to dilute the votes that do.

[1] Insert your own joke here.

Re:You should vote, here's why

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't help the incumbent.

Take this election as an example. An uninformed republican who voted a ticket is hiundering the incumbent by not voting, since os many republicans voted democrat in this election (here in Ohio the democratic candidate for goveroner got around a quarter of the republican vote). So staying home favored the challenger.

But in a "normal" election (do we have those anymore?) this would be true. I'm just not sure the traditional wisdom applies here anymore.

Re:You should vote, here's why

[LanMan04]

How does not voting help the incumbent?
Whoever gets the most votes will win the election, regardless of whether or not he/she is the incumbent.
Not voting gives equal help/hinderance to both sides, and is therefore a neutral action.

Would you say that not voting in a race with no incumbent is a neutral action? If so, how is it different?

Re:Question is a Logical Falacy!

[Anonymous Coward]

>> Many people have fought and died for over the last 200+ years so that YOU have the priviledge of participating in our democracy.

When in the last 200 years have Americans died protecting their right to democratic participation?

There were some black protesters in the 60s, sufferagettes etc, but that only applies if the previous poster is not a white male (and on slashdot, he probably is).

Most of the threats to democracy in America are home grown, in the media, electoral systems, concentration of power among different branches of government, relaxing of freedoms, tightening government intrusion etc, and it doesn't look like anyone is dying to stop those things...

Re:Question is a Logical Falacy!

[pi_rules]

Many people have fought and died for over the last 200+ years so that YOU have the priviledge of participating in our democracy.

That's a pretty big stretch, and I'm sick of seeing it all the time. The Revolutionary War established the Republic, the War of 1812 kept us sovereign, and the Civil War played a role in getting the right to vote to those of African decent, but the others? They really didn't have anything to do with the right to vote.

Amendments 19 (women's right to vote) and 26 (voting age of 18) did more to open up voting privledges than any war.

Re:Let me answer your question with this statement

[bomb_number_20]

I disagree.

Being smart gives you no advantage when voting unless you know something about the candidates. If you don't know anything about any of the candidates, you are reduced to guessing. In this case, the only information you have available to you is the candidates name, party and the position they are running for. You have nothing useful with which to draw a meaningful conclusion as to the best candidate.

In this particular situation, a stupid person who knows nothing about the candidates guesses just as well as a smart person who knows nothing about the candidates.

Re:Are you kidding?

[MrAnnoyanceToYou]

Heh. Yeah, I guess if you count absorbing all of the sanctioned disinformation out there as informed you're right.

No vote equals a vote for the winner

[boo pixie]

If you don't vote, that means that you don't disagree with what the outcome of the election will be. Politicians won't care that you didn't vote, they only care about votes that were not for her or him. If 5,000 people in a local election decided not to vote, noone would notice or care. If 5,000 people voted for a third party or for jar jar binks for that matter, then the politicians would take notice.

So if you want to change things, do something. Pretending that your staying at home and watching next top model is going to make a difference, think again.

Werrrrrd.

[Showz]

I find myself to be in the exact same boat. When people confront me about why I don't/didn't vote, we just end up arguing. Quite frankly, I'm tired of it--especially because I'm in an environment (college campus) where individuals are bombarded with phrases such as "Vote or die!" by gung-ho, politically-minded people. What's funny is that when people tell me to vote, they almost always mention Bush and how he is an absolute idiot. I ask them, "Why is Bush an idiot?" and the conversation almost always ends. DON'T VOTE IF YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON!!!! That's my philosophy, anyway.

Re:Let me answer your question with this statement

[yali]

Odds are, you will never agree with any candidate's views 100% of the time, unless you are the candidate. Even then, you won't agree 100% of the time, judging from past politicians.

Let me add that odds are you will agree with one candidate more than the other(s). Voting isn't about getting everything you want on every single issue. That doesn't happen in a democracy -- you'll have to become dictator of your own nation to realize that little fantasy. Voting is about moving the country in a more positive direction, and that is an eminently realistic and achievable goal.

I hope you voted

[Ogemaniac]

Thank you for being informed.

The most important thing one can learn from knowing these numbers is that when any politician yaps about "cutting the deficit" or "cutting spending", they are talking about trivial chump-change unless they are willing to cut one of these five items (actually four, as debt interest is pretty much a given).

Re:I hope you voted

[funwithBSD]

Now that it is passed...

Medicare and Medical are seperate items.

Welfare/Unemployment is the missing 5th.

Interest is actually 6th, suprise suprise.

BTW, the current yearly defict and the amount we pay on interest are about equal. We would be balanced if we were not servicing ~8 Trillion in debt.

Re:Let me answer your question with this statement

[blockhouse]

It puts more power in the hands of the stupid.

That in a nutshell is why democracy is ineffective, dangerous, and should be abolished.

EVERYONE SHOULD VOTE

[drinkypoo]

But more importantly, we should stop disenfranchising voters for any reason. Politicians will tell you that we don't let felons vote because we fear that they will gang up and sabotage our political process. Bullshit. The only reason not to let felons vote is that if we did that, they might vote for someone who wants to fix the system that creates so many felons, and we can't have that. If that happened, where would all the people employed in the corrections system go to work?

Re:Let me answer your question with this statement

[raduf]

Unfortunately, this doesn't make them more likely to be right when they're totaly uninformed. That's the main problem with a bipartisan system, it takes an expert to know who's "more right" at any given time.

Dont vote for unopposed canidates

[lupine]

I am informed, but I don't vote for all races.
When I vote, I make my mark for contested races and for referendums and I vote for uncontested candidates that I know do a good job of representing me.

Other candidates that are running unopposed for minor offices that I dislike or have no opinion of I skip entirely so that if there is someone out there who has gone to the trouble to organize a last minute write in campaign they will not have my vote against them.

Re:Dont vote for unopposed canidates

[lubricated]

>> I am informed, but I don't vote for all races.

Down with whitey.

Thank you

[Solius]

I don't care which side people think they are on, conservative or liberal... or something in between. Many don't follow what is going on in the world or what each candidate believes... Just voting because you have the right to vote is not right.

MTV's rock the vote was a great example of the wrong thing to do (well... MTV is pretty much the wrong thing to begin with). Pushing people to get out and vote without pushing them to first find out what they truly stand for and then see what candidates best align with those feelings is completely wrong.

I personally refused to vote for any candidate unless I knew what they stood for. I had to go out last night and read about each candidate that I would be able to vote for to make sure that I could under good conscience make that vote. I am not red and I am not blue. I vote for who stands by my beliefs. If there is no such candidate then I must resort to what I believe is the lesser of two evils.

Anyone who wants to come to philly and pick up my 2 cents is more than welcome ;-)

YOU...LAZY...FUCK!!!

[ocbwilg]

So let me get this straight...you have time to surf the web and post questions to Ask Slashdot, but you don't have time to spend the 30 seconds it would take to find a candidates web site to find out where they stand on the issues? The question isn't whether or not you should vote, the question is why you're so unwilling to find out what's going on in your community that you can't be bothered to vote.

For example, in many counties you can get a list of ballot issues and candidates from the local board of elections web site. When I searched for mine, the Franklin County (Ohio) board of elections was the first page returned. Then there's this glaringly large link on the front page that says "click here too see if you are registered or to see a sample ballot." I clicked it, put in my name, verified my address, and was able to see everything that I would be allowed to vote on in this election. Total time, about 2 minutes.

Now in my case, I was already familiar with most of the major candidates and the issues, but for those that I was unfamiliar with I was able to simply google them to get the info that I wanted. There are numerous web sites set up to show the voting history of people in congress. AARP typically has a good breakdown of where various candidates stand on the issues. In all seriousness, with less than an hours worth of work you could not only find out what you'll be voting on, but learn enough about the major candidates and issues to make a reasonably informed decision about them. Sure, there's probably 3 pages of judges running for election that you won't have the time to learn about, so just don't vote on those particular races.

Maybe in days gone by it was reasonable to claim ignorance and not want to take the effort to research each of the candidates or issues, but in the modern age of the Internets it has become almost trivial to research something. In that light, not taking the effort to learn and vote on the issues is inexcusable.

Re:YOU...LAZY...FUCK!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

That'd be really nice in a realistic world. Wouldn't it be great if candidates would start putting more than one or two issues on their websites?

Re:YOU...LAZY...FUCK!!!

[ocbwilg]

That'd be really nice in a realistic world. Wouldn't it be great if candidates would start putting more than one or two issues on their websites?

The candidates web sites are the only places that you can find out about how people have voted on the issues. As I mentioned earlier, the AARP has a site that's pretty decent. There's others like www.washingtonwatch.com, and if you want to know who is funding the candidates you can even get that info from www.fecinfo.com. Again, it only took me about a minute and a half to find those sites, and there are plenty more if you're willing to expend anything more than the bare minimum amount of effort. But hey, maybe I'm just crazy for thinking that spending an hour or two once every couple years to get to know the candidates and issues so that you can help determine the future of your community and nation is the very least that a responsible citizen could do.

No, but...

[jonadab]

An uniformed vote isn't better than no vote, but you might consider informing yourself a bit. I don't mean that you should obsessively follow all things political, but generally there are at least some things on the ballot that are pretty easy to figure out. In Ohio today, for instance, there's a state constitutional amendment that would make anti-smoking laws unconstitutional in Ohio. It's pretty easy to figure out the implications of that one.

So inform yourself as much as you do have time to do (within reason), go, and vote on the stuff you do know about. If you see candidates you don't know anything about running for a particular office, just leave that one blank and move on to the next. There's no law that says you have to vote on every item or none of them.

You can also leave an item blank if there's no acceptable candidate running. I had to do that an election or so ago in the Ohio gubernatorial race, when Bob Taft was running against Lee Fisher, neither of whom I could ever make myself vote for, for any office. Fortunately Taft's out now. (I think maybe his maximum term expired or something -- anyway, he didn't run today.)

Re:Let me answer your question with this statement

[TheRaven64]

And even if you don't agree with either of the candidates who stand a chance, there's always the option of a protest vote for a third party. Politicians tend to disregard the did-not-vote crowd when assessing their moral authority. A candidate who won with 60% of the vote is likely to be a lot more aggressive about pushing their agenda than one who got 45%. The first can justify their actions to the press (and thus the electorate) by saying 'I'm here by the will of the people,' while the second one can't; he's the least-unpopular candidate, rather than the most popular.

Re:An uninformed vote is STILL a vote that YOU cas

[dfghjk]

That's the dumbest thing I've read in a while. Way to get into the head of the uninformed voter.

bias of uninformed votes

[j1m 5n0w]

Assuming a uniform probability distribution on parties, they will cancel each other out.

As others have stated, a uniform distribution is unlikely. I believe the real effect of uninformed votes is to bias the election results towards whichever candidate is most successful at marketing him/herself, which often means the candidate with the biggest campaign budget.

Only if you assume...

[kinglink]

If you assume all the other voters are smart enough and will vote for who is best, not by party lines.

If you assume that, let's assume the ground is made out of chocolate and the only reason we don't eat it is because we just stepped on it.

Honestly the effect of a uniformed vote and no vote probably wouldn't be worth mentioning, as long as you vote randomly. If you really are uninformed (how you can be with ads every day in every way is beyond my comprehension), then research your candidates, you should have information on who the candidates are, learn and vote appropriately.

Find a reason to prefer one, something you really care about and vote for that person. Remember if you go vote, you don't have to vote in every contest, you only need to vote in stuff you care to vote for.

Or go vote and only vote on referendum that explain the idea in your election (not every election or area has one.) Mine in Illinios though has stuff on pulling out of iraq and impeaching bush, as well as a new tax, these are crucial questions that I'm sure everyone has an opinion on.

However if you really care about whether your vote will count, your already above a lot of people who just vote to act like they care or have a part. Otherwise you really have no right to complain when the goverment does anything to you or that you don't like, don't give up the oppurtunity, you still have a couple hours left.

Re:Has no effect

[hcg50a]

But there could be other mathematical models of "uninfomed".

Exactly. In California, for example, the wording of propositions must be specified in the positive: A "yes" vote always means to adopt the proposed change, a "no" vote always means to reject the proposed change.

An uninformed voter could vote "no" on all propositions. This is not an unreasonable thing to do.

Not voting is not neutral: It is supporting the majority or plurality (not incumbents).

ask someone you trust?

[dwater]

You have friends, right?

I have a friend or two who I know keep up with politics much more than me, and with whom I almost always agree. How about you ask them which way you should vote? If they really know you well, they might even tell you which way you would want to vote, instead of just which way they are going to vote. You can't know everything about everything, and some people are better at something that others - experts even. Sometimes it's good to trust other people's opinions. ...but pick someone you know and trust, not someone on a TV ad or who comes to the door holding a baby. ...or perhaps which way you vote is a taboo subject in the US?

Max.

Re:ask someone you trust?

[belg4mit]

It's not totally taboo*, but it may depend on where in the country you are; I could
imagine the South/Midwest having very different ideas about it. My experience on the
coasts (generally more liberal places) is that one can and does discuss it with
friends or in the confines of related social clubs. It can still be a touchy subject
though, especially elections which are one's vote is perceived as very private. I
suspect the lack of broad discourse on political issues contributes greatly to the
general disfucktalness of the system.

* Traditionally though. etiquette would dictate that one should not discuss sex,
politics or religion.

Re:ask someone you trust?

[Cro Magnon]

...but pick someone you know and trust, not someone on a TV ad or who comes to the door holding a baby. ...

But I DO trust that woman who came to my door holding a baby. She was a total stranger, but very smart and she told me how to vote on every issue/candidate. How can you NOT trust a woman holding a baby?

Re:Let me answer your question with this statement

[Anonymous Coward]

True. Most of the least informed people I know think that they are well informed.

FUBAR

[KRNLfuxx0r]

It absolutely doesn't matter who you vote for or if you vote at all. You have no influence. Sure, a bunch of jackasses will tell you that your vote really does matter. Please don't believe them. You are basically forced to choose between a few candidates that the man chooses. No matter which you choose, and no matter which one wins, its the man that really wins. You lose. Most of all of us lose. If you want to make a difference in this country, start a revolution movement and overthrow the government.

Don't post ignorant*ly*

[Anonymous Coward]

It sounds like you should have paid more attention in the founding fathers' schools.

Re:Let me answer your question with this statement

[Anonymous Coward]

The people smart enough to consider this question are probably more intelligent than 85% of those who actually will vote.

Also, 68% of statistics are totally made up, although that's only true half the time..

It's all up to how informed you feel

[Caiwyn]

My state allows early voting, so I already voted last week, but before doing so I wrestled with a similar problem. I knew I wanted to vote for governor and congress, but there are plenty of smaller statewide races I knew nothing about. Hopefully my experience will be useful to some folks.

First of all, if you don't think you have a firm grasp on the issues, you have three options:

1. Vote randomly, or along party lines
2. Abstain from voting
3. Educate yourself about the issues and candidates

Logically speaking, option 1 can indeed come back to bite you; not knowing where a candidate stands on the issues gives you very little insight into his motivations and actions. I highly recommend choosing another option. Still, if you know you like a particular party platform, the odds are in your favor with a straight party ticket.

Option 2 is a perfectly safe option. It is as much your right to abstain from the voting process as it is your right to take part in it. In fact, even if you believe yourself to be well-informed about candidates and issues, you may find that you do not prefer one option to another.

I chose option 3, and though it took me the better part of a day, I believe it was worth it. There are several resources at your disposal. Various organizations publish handy voter's guides. For me, the most useful was the voter's guide provided by The League of Women Voters. They sent questions to all the candidates, and the candidates provided answers. This was a very useful, no-nonsense, no-bias, no-mudslinging resource.

Beyond that, most newspapers have found their way online these days, and it is likely that your local newspaper(s) will have endorsements listed online. My city has a newspaper, and alternative newspaper, and a student newspaper, all of which endorsed particular candidates (and gave their reasons for doing so). You may not agree with a newspaper's reasoning for its endorsements, but that doesn't make it any less valuable a resource -- you can always vote the other way.

With these few simple resources, I felt I knew enough about the candidates and issues on the ballot to make an informed decision. There's a lot of distortion and spin in today's media, but it is not impossible to find straight answers if you're looking for them. Bottom line: You owe it to yourself to get educated on the issues.

So to answer your question, yes, I believe abstaining is a better choice than an uninformed choice. But an informed choice beats either of them, hands down.

Election quote of the day (off topic)

[bgspence]

From Warren Ellis's BAD SIGNAL mailing list: "Karl Rove is not Aleister Crowley, Severus Snape, Darth Vader or Satan. You can kill him by ensuring your vote is counted and being vigilant at your polling station."

We the governed

[Tony]

Doc,

This is perhaps the most nuanced take I have ever seen on the entire process. It certainly makes me feel better about my half-informed contributions to the system.

I wish more people would see voting as a requirement, rather than a right.

Re:We the governed

[Doc Ruby]

Thanks. That's one of the nicer compliments I could expect from what is an essentially cynical take on voting: it convinces people we are each part of the process, even though we're each only a tiny part.

I just went through jury duty this week, too - I feel like Citizen of the Month. The most interesting part of jury duty was seeing just how reasonable it is to do things that way. I expect that most of the people who complain about "out of control juries" just rarely or never serve on juries. Like many who complain about voting rarely/never vote.

Just like most who send our troops to war rarely or never serve in the military. But I digress - as is my right as an American ;).

My POV.

[rdewalt]

Until Sunday, I was like the parentmost post. I had no opinion. Sure, I could have voted randomly, or not voted at all.

I sat down and spent two hours with a browser reading up and becoming informed. I looked at my local ballot, and took the time to understand the issues on it so I would not go to the booth with a wild guess.

I would rather someone -not- vote, than randomly/blindly/uninformed-ly vote.

Finding the information on my own ballot (since each location would have a localized ballot, where I found my information, and you, are two different places) was not difficult. And I felt it was my own duty as a member of a voting-capable society to inform -myself- on the matters. (Since my wife and I do not watch television, we were not polluted by TV campaign ads. BUT we had to educate ourselves.)

GO learn for yourself. It does not take long, and it is not HARD.

Uninformed and annoyed

[Loconut1389]

After watching the negative ads all sides were running, and spending too much time trying to sort out fact from fiction or spin (eg- yes, he voted that bill down, but he voted that one down because he was waiting for a tack-on to this other bill)- I ran out of time to spend on figuring it out and declared it a lost cause. So, I instantly became uninformed and annoyed and I didn't vote for anyone because there was just too much misinformation. If someone else wants to sort it out better than me and vote, great for them.

Ultimately, too many people will vote that don't know or don't truly care, and the people who respectfully abstain on the grounds that some more knowledgeable will are generally making a mistake if they think that only intelligent folks will vote.

Will it Ever Stop?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the real question is:
      Is it better to vote uniformed, or vote informed when you are such a partisan republican
      or democrat that you won't even consider another party.

My view of our country is that a lot of people have too much PARTISANSHIP for there own party, and cannot vote arbitrarily. On the other hand, I do not blame them. I tend to favor my party and deny the other side. I'm simply saying we have a little problem with decisions.

You Can't Really Know The Candidates, Anyway

[Slashdot Parent]

I wouldn't let not being informed about the candidates dissuade you from voting. Most of the people who think they are informed don't know their candidates at all.

For instance, in 2000, I thought Republican Presidential Candidate George W. Bush was an isolationist, fiscally-responsible, more-or-less dim bulb. It turns out he is a warmongering, deficit-spending, Constitution-violating, bulldozer.

Seriously, would you have guessed that in November, 2000?

Of course...

[Belial6]

Of course we are not talking about people that want know who their least favorite candidate is. We are talking about people who openly admit that they don't know who is bad and who is worse. The best thing for these people to do is vote third party. The reason is that they won't be helping the worse of two candidates. They likely won't affect the outcome any more than if they stayed home, but it a third party candidate got 10% of the vote because of this, you can be sure that the two major parties would start thinking a little harder about how to keep the prols happy.

Re:Are you kidding?

[Arker]

Uninformed voter is the very definition of most people that are running to vote Democrat.

True, but a lie by omission nonetheless. You need to add the words "or Republican."

Vote!

[bidule]

Vote! And hate yourself for voting wrong. If it doesn't hurt, you won't have an incentive to do it right next time.

Vote for any trashy 3rd party just to scare the two Republicrats if you don't like pain, but vote.

How the hell can you learn bicycle if you don't fall a few times.

Cast a Protest Vote

[godglike]

If none of the candidates is acceptable then vote for the candidate least likely to win. Preferably this should from the local equivalent of The Monster Raving Loony Party. Failing that vote for a very small party with no chance of winning.

The idea is that if enough people start voting strangely, the real candidates will realise that many people don't care about their current agenda. Alternatively the lesser parties might actually get serious and organised, and change the world (in a very local sense).

Re:Cast a Protest Vote

[Mawbid]

Two elections ago, I voted for a party because I disliked it less than those likely to win.

I don't recommend it. Afterwards, it felt like I'd lied.

In the last election, I did something better. I still didn't feel like voting for any of the parties, so I didn't. I took my ballot and dropped it right in the box, unmarked.

Where I live, the number of "blank or invalid" ballots is always reported along with the candidates' tallies. I don't know if you have that in the states. I'm not thrilled about being lumped in with people who tried and failed to tick a box, but it's better than being counted among those who don't care, or helping some wackjob party get a seat or two.

Re:Cast a Protest Vote

[godglike]

Nice. Here in NZ I get 2 votes so I can complain about the local candidate and still vote for the right party nationally. Or vis-versa.

If it were available, I'd go with your suggestion but it doesn't seem popular with the people who makes the rules. I wonder why :)

Re:Has no affect, or does it?

[WillAffleckUW]

Assuming a uniform probability distribution on parties, they will cancel each other out.

However, national census and election data indicates GOP voters at 22 percent, Dems at 28 percent, and the rest (larger than both) Independent.

Therefore, you are incorrectly using statistics.

It is really very simple

[stefaanh]

If you don't vote, you agree with the majority of the voters, whatever they vote for. You agree in advance. You will only have to blame yourself for the outcome.

compulsory voting

[Anonymous Coward]

> I am in strong support of a tax deduction for voting

In Belgium we've compulsory voting. You don't get tax deductions but get fined if you don't :-) . You've the right to cast a "blank" vote but whatever you do, you must show up and cast a vote. You're actually getting an offical invitation and your identity is being registered while you cast your vote. There's a reasonable chance you get called upon to assist and check the actual voting. If you're unable to physicaly attend for a good reason, you can fill in some paper to give someone permission to show up in your place.

As a result the political landscape is completly different. There are typical between 4 and 10 reasonable big parties and there's a bigger chance you find a party which matches better your opinion. Governing is also more different and maybe more difficult I think . Decissions are far often more compromises. It allows however also for
smaller parties to actually get some of their action points through legislation.

http://www.idea.int/vt/compulsory_voting.cfm
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2874.htm

On the issues

[Ellidi T]

OnTheIssues.org
A good read if you want to know about a candidate's standpoint.

Hypocrisy or Democracy...the lesser of two evils

[Anonymous Coward]

I remember reading somewhere: Democracy is not ideal, as it allows for the votes of the stupid and the vicious to count, but in any other system, they'd be the ones running the show.

All i can say is that, if you do make an uninformed vote - and realised that you have voted for the wrong person, you'll probably be more inclined to take more care the next time voting comes around.

I find it amusing that so many suggest that the 'ignorant' masses should just stay at home if they are not informed. I ask you all, what is worse? A situation where people vote blindly, realise that they've made a mistake and they take more care to be more informed at the next election. Basically, in such a case, they take responsibility for their actions and rectify them accordingly.
OR
A situation where people wash their hands of this privilege and then spend the next 4 years complaining that its all going to the dogs and there's nothing that they can do about it? Only to plead ignorance or powerlessness when they are given the next oppourtunity?

Do you really have so little faith in your country and selves? I also hate to point this out, but the only way to make politicians listen is by using your voting power - they can't read your minds, and i doubt that they would want to anyway if they could. So its up to you, either stop complaining and vote or continue to wallow in your comfortable hypocrisy.

Voting on the issues is easy, and should be done

[ChrTssu]

Maybe it's different in other states (though I don't believe it is), but in Ohio at least, the issues (propositions, amendments, etc.) are spelled out in "plain English" on the ballots and can be read and re-read as many times as you'd like. Take as long as you want, it's only a race to the politicians. I consider myself very well-informed, politically (it's part of my schooling), and I still read every issue at least two or three times at the polls - if for no other reason than to slow down the legislative process. ;)

Absolutely Moot

[mattwarden]

What the hell does this matter when the elections have no accountability? You're worried about whether your voting power will elect the wrong individual, but you never asked whether you had any power in the first place.

The real question is: why should I go out and vote when the election can be decided by a single SQL statement, a malicious vote counting machine memory card, or the hundreds of other methods of voting fraud that HAPPEN EVERY ELECTION?

Anybody who listens to Greg Mankiw Deserves Him

[kthejoker]

Uhh, maybe some points of disclosure about Greg Mankiw:

a) He is a former libertarian turned neocon Harvard economist.
b) He is a Bush White House economic adviser, most famous for saying, "outsourcing is .. probably a plus in the long run" back in 2004.
c) He is an elitist of the worst sort, a misanthrope who really believes (in the vein of Hamilton) that only very well-trained and well-educated people can possibly know what's best for America.

Please read his blog (gregmankiw.blogspot.com) for a sampling of what he has to say about Econ 101 (the Free Market will crush your feeble format!) and about people in general.

And we're taking what he says at face value? C'mon, people, this is exactly what he and Grover Norquist and other right-wing intellectuals want: they want a public that throws its hands up, says it can't decide on the issues because they are "too complicated", and begs and pleads for Mankiw and his ilk to come save them from themselves.

Pathetic.

Which does NOT mean voting third party is useless.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

The very nature of our plurality system ("one man, one vote," winner take all) will inevitably lead to a two-party system, ...

Which does NOT mean that a minor-party vote is wasted.

A minor party vote says to the major party candidates: "Here is somebody who cared enough to vote and BOTH of you were so far from his position that NEITHER of you got that vote."

That's easy for the majors to write off as flakes when only a few people do it. But when a lot of people start voting for one minor party, it tells them that they've gotten disconnected from the popular will. This they DO notice.

Then one of the parties - usually the one otherwise more compatible with the minor party's position - will start modifying its position to try to serve these disenfranchised voters, co-opt the third party, and collect the votes. (Generally this happens through internal politics, where the power balance shifts toward those more compatible with the minor party.)

But if BOTH major parties remain refractory in the face of a major issue, the minor will grow to replace the weaker of them - accompanied by other uphevals. (Last time this happened the Republican party graduated to major status and elected its first president - Abraham Lincon.)

The winning strategy for minor-party voting is to vote for a candidate of the minor party whose stated (and true) position is closest to yours on the main point where you diverge from the postions of the corresponding candidates of the major parties. That way you tell the major party brass not just that they've drifted away from the electorate, but which way to go to get back.

Not the right way to do it

[david.given]

If you are so dissatisfied with all available candidates that you cannot choose between them, then the appropriate thing to do is to vote 'none of the above'. In this country, we do this by handing in a spoiled ballot: all boxes checked, or none. I believe that in your country with electronic voting machines there's a special option on the screen to allow you to do this.

This differs from merely failing to show up because:

• it indicates that you do are interested in voting, and are not just apathetic
• it indicates that none of the candidates are satisfactory to you

Such things are normally noticed and recorded as part of the vote returns. The number of spoiled ballots, as well as the number of votes for lunatic parties, are a very valuable indication of how much people believe in the democratic process.

Re:Let me answer your question with this statement

[pile0nades]

My problem wasn't ignorance, but procrastination. I would always wait until the last moment to decide if I should get informed on the issues,

That's excactly what happened for me today. I waited until yesterday to research the candidates, but I did vote today and am glad I did. It's an awesome feeling to vote for the first time. BTW, I'm Independent too.

Complex ballot initiatives

[Glass Lizard]

Even though I think it is easy to get information about the candidates running for office these days, I still felt a little unprepared once I looked at the sample ballot sent a few days before the election. There were a few ballot questions listed that seemed almost esoteric. The questions are along the lines of "if we currently have a tax on gasoline and we are required to allocate part of the revenue to a specific program, should we raise the requirement?" Even a relatively informed voter may not understand or consider all of the consequences of questions like that.

In any case, if I am not sure of my answer to a public question, I usually vote against it.

NSDAP

[Anonymous Coward]

Just like some people in the old Weimar republic you think there is too much squabbling and not enough choice for you to be excited enough to get informed and go and vote - not quite a century ago that meant that the poeple riled up enough to go and vote elected Nazis .....

Importance of being party loyal

[jmorris42]

> I'd say most people who vote a straight ticket are uninformed. What are the chances that EVERY
> Democratic candidate is the best choice?

Sorry, I defer to RAH's logic on this one. Don't have the book handy for an exact quote but here is the basics from memory.

"As a general rule I vote the party not the man. I will vote for a dunderhead of my party vs a genius of the party opposed. After all, if the dunderhead is subject to party discpline he should be able to represent me reasonably well while the genius is likely to acomplish many things... that I will disagree with in all the ways that the parties differ. As an exception I will not vote for a person with such a gross moral defect as to present a menace to the Republic, regardless of party affiliation."

What would be the point of me, as a (nominal, L leaning) Republican, voting for a Democrat even if he/she were a stirring speaker, wonderful statesman and generally agreeable with my own positions on policy? Being dependent on Democrat money she/she WILL vote party line on most important issues, will caucus with the Democrats (in the election meaning potential change of control) and in every other way be a member of a party resolutely opposed to every philosophical ideal I value. No, let the guy either change parties or run as an I and I will think about it.

I don't want to vote uninformed...

[MS-06FZ]

I don't want to be an uninformed voter, so if someone could please tell me who to vote for and why, it'd save me a lot of hassle...

Denver is having problems with electronic voting

[careysb]

DENVER - The computer system that checks the registration of voters and allows them to vote was down citywide for around 20 minutes Tuesday afternoon. Just pulled from www.9news.com

OMG, you're right

[sparkz]

One person, one vote must inevitably lead to a 2-party system. Why did I not realise this truth earlier? Maybe because I live in the UK, where we have three mainstream parties, plus the greens, the racists, all with parliamentary seats. Currently there are only two parties with a hope of power, but this has not always been the case; the "third party", the Liberal Democrats, have a history longer than the current power-holders, and all three of the major parties have held power for significant periods of the past century. Oh, wait. I get it. "This is what I see in the USA -> This is inevitable". Sorry, I forgot about that aspect of your argument.

Re:OMG, you're right

[Control Group]

Fine. A plurality system will inevitably trend towards a two-party political landscape.

The simple mathematical fact of the matter is that plurality voting only yields results reasonably approximating the actual will of the people when there are only two candidates. This will be a forcing influence towards a two-party system, as candidates will be aware that their chances of election are improved by being a member of one of the two dominant parties.

Re:OMG, you're right

[sparkz]

Oh right, I see.

Thank you for the education.

When British democracy has lasted as long as American democracy, maybe I will better understand these things.

"None of above"

[antdude]

We need a "None of Above" option. :)

No thanks!

[avoisin]

I thought about exactly this today on the way to work, and it occurred to me that although Republicans and Democrats are the only major parties, I usually find myself associated with one or the other most of the time (which one isn't important here). If there was a third party candidate that was closer in line to my personal beliefs, I'd vote for them without a second thought.

The problem is most third party candidates (at least where I am) are so extreme or so focused on a single topic that voting for them simply doesn't make sense. I research my votes heavily before deciding, and I've yet to find anyone that was even ballpark close to what I'd like to see in office that wasn't a Republican or Democrat.

I also suspect this is how most of America feels too. Most people I know tend to polarize their political beliefs, so you naturally end up with two parties that are essentially opposites from one another.

We do in fact elect third-party candidates on a relatively regular basis, for example Jesse Ventura. In his case, he wasn't "extreme", had a stated opinion on a broad spectrum of topics, and was otherwise a fairly "normal" type of candidate.

Statistical versus systematic

[xPsi]

Vote randomly and at least you become a part of the statistical errors of the election. That's in contrast to the the systematic errors (also know as "election results") created by the non-random "informed" people...

Signal-to-noise ratio....

[jemenake]

If you can't add signal, you can still improve the signal-to-noise ratio by not adding noise.

I voted today, but only for about 15% of the positions/initiatives on the ballot. The ones I didn't vote on fell into two categories:

1. Issues where I didn't know enough about the candidates/initiative. In this case, I see it as pointless to just add coin-flip or party-line votes. I'll make it easier for the hand-recounters (if a recount is needed) by giving them one less thing to count.
2. Issues where I knew the issue, but where the outcome really didn't affect me. In this case, casting a vote would dilute the votes of people who have a much larger stake in the issue. In a perfect world, maybe we could vote for someone/something along with a weight of 1-10 for how strongly we favored our choice. But, today, the weighting can only be binary (0 or 1), so I weighted most of my votes as 0 this time by not voting.

Besides... it's not like it matters anyway. I think of the polling place as more of a hands-on "democracy museum", where you get to experience what it was like when the people got to select their leaders.

Re:Signal-to-noise ratio....

[xeno-cat]

I think we would need something like SETI@home to detect your signal. To bad Arecibo is being decomissioned.

If you voted non-republican I'll bet they just removed your noise so as to keep the signal clean anyway. Can't have the randomness of the informed screwing things up.

Kind Regards

Vote ignorant

[swillden]

When people say that it is your civic duty to vote, they are only telling you a third of the story. It is your civic duty to lean about the issues, make up your own mind, and then, (and only then) vote.

Sure. But the question is... what if you haven't informed yourself?

Vote anyway. You aren't, in fact, truly ignorant. You're not as well informed as you might be, but you do know something. If nothing else, you probably have a general sense of whether you like the way things have been going or not. If so, go vote the incumbents back in office. If not, vote against them. If you're voting against them, you can either pick an opponent at random or if some opponent's party happens to strike your fancy, vote for that one.

The best thing to do is to get informed. But if you can't do that, at least act on what little information you *do* have, even if it's nothing more than "I do/don't like the status quo".

Re:Let me answer your question with this statement

[dslauson]

Not voting because you don't think you are informed enough results in fewer votes by smart people.

An opinion by a smart person is totally worthless if that person doesn't know what they're talking about. You wouldn't ask Bobby Fischer to make important decisions on global warming or whatever, because he doesn't know shit about that, even though he is a very smart guy.

That said, it takes all of half an hour to get up to speed enough to vote. Check out the info from the League of Women Voters. Or, if you don't trust them, there are tons of sources where you can get information with your favorite flavor of spin on it. You're not being an irresponsible citizen for staying home, you're being irresponsible citizen for failing to make the slightest effort.

I don 't care if you vote or not...

[butane317]

I don't care if you vote or not, but if you don't, you'd damn well better not complain about the current state of our government.

Welcome to Australia

[matw8]

The land of compulsory voting... and hence the land of the donkey vote.

Then vote by mail

[dwight_hubbard]

If being informed is such a big issue, see if you can vote by mail.

That way if there is anything on the ballot you don't understand you can go research the candidate or issue.

Does either matter?

[nurb432]

Regardless of who gets into office, they all get corrupted and continue the 'machine' anyway, so what does it matter?

Top 11 Reasons to Vote

[bgspence]

11. Because this is the most important election of our lifetime, (unlike, say, 1996, which was, like, totally lame. Why did they even have an election then?)
10. To shut up all those "If you didn't vote then you can't complain" people.
9. Because if you don't vote, the terrorists win (unless you were going to vote for the terrorists, in which case they win anyway).
8. Because people in Iraq braved violence and long lines to vote for their ineffectual government, you don't have to brave either to vote for yours.
7. Because this year Al Franken will literally beat the shit out of you if you're not wearing an "I Voted" sticker.
6. You would like a different politician lying to you for the next two/four/six years.
5. You want your voice to be heard, and the old woman down at the polling station can't leave her post so she'll have to listen.
4. You like to stand in line and pretend you're waiting for a Wii or Playstation III.
3. Perfect opportunity to check if your e-vote hack is in place.
2. Because you're tired of all the Republican scandals and abuses of power, and would like more Democratic scandals and abuses of power.
1. To relive those test taking days in college when you just filled in the circles randomly hoping to get some right.

Self-fulfilling prophesy

[darkonc]

You don't follow politics because you're not going to vote, then you don't vote because you haven't followed the politics.

If you force yourself to vote, then next year you'll probably be paying more attention -- simply because you'll know that you'll be voting. I consider voting to be the minimal requirement in a democracy.

One last point: You may regret the consequences whether or not you vote. If you don't vote and find out that a creep that you didn't really like got in by one vote, you'll be just as disappointed as you would if his/her opponent got in by your one vote and turned out to be a creep.

That's why I consider voting to be the minimal political activity. The next step (should you accept this mission....) is to get into more direct lobbying and volunteer work etc. over an issue that you actually care about.

Knowledge of your ignorance is still knowledge

[sidb]

If you are informed enough to ask that question, you are more informed than many, many voters. I wish everyone were as informed as you. A lot of people's knowledge of a candidate consists of just a bit or two of catchy bad rhetoric and memory of a trustworthy-looking face. A lot more people treat political parties like sports teams to root for, not like an actual decision to consider.

Vote informally

[newhoggy]

If I feel uninformed, or if I dislike my choices, I would still go to the polling booth and make an informal vote (a vote that was accidently or intentionally entered incorrectly and rendered invalid). That way I will still be counted as having attempted a vote showing that I care and that my votes in the future are up for grabs to whoever can inform me properly and convince me that they deserve my vote.

But seeing how dodgy some elections are in the US, I'd be careful when attempting to lodge an informal vote in case it gets counted to a particular candidate due to some obscene process. I would also be upset if I were presented with electronic voting that doesn't allow me to cast an informal vote.

Re:Vote informally

[belg4mit]

In French this is called a "vote blanche" in English you'd probably call this a
blank vote or "None of the above."

Making an uninformed vote count

[Anonymous Coward]

In many of the races on my ballot, it listed the candidates, then it had a "None of the above" option. I selected this option often.
In races that did not include this option, I voted for candidates in this order of preference: Independent, Independent American Party, top choice that wasn't Republicrat.

In states that allow write-ins, write somebody in! Write-in your favorite grocer, or your barber, or your dog. Vote for somebody you think would be able to do the job adequately and more honorably than the candidates on the ballot.

You won't vote in somebody you later regret. You will send a message on discontent.

If you are actually content, vote for the incumbent.

Voting

[certain death]

Not voting is a HUGE waste!!! You have a voice, you have a choice and you have the right to express those views. To NOT vote is just wrong. I understand some people abstain for the same reasons you quote, but you need to pick someone who most closely represents your morals, opinions and standards and vote for them. It is kinda like interviewing 15 candidates for a position, none of them have all the skills you need, but one or two have most of the skills, and one person will stand out as someone who can LEARN the other skills you need. Think about it that way, and you may change your mind. PLEASE CHANGE YOU MIND!!!

You misunderstand third party voting.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

The problem is most third party candidates (at least where I am) are so extreme or so focused on a single topic that voting for them simply doesn't make sense. I research my votes heavily before deciding, and I've yet to find anyone that was even ballpark close to what I'd like to see in office that wasn't a Republican or Democrat.

Third party candidates aren't about getting elected. Third party candidates are about getting the major parties to shift position. They know it: That's why they're each being up-front and extreme about one agenda: To maximize the error signal to the major parties when they wander so far away from that position that mainstream voters are left behind and show it by voting minor-party.

They're in it to get their agenda through (or a competing agenda blocked) by getting a major party to co-opt them. (They only graduate to major-party status if BOTH major parties go stupid and run away from the electorate.)

YOU'RE in it for the same thing: To change the behavior of the government on some important point(s) to something more to your liking.

So when the majors are both really tweaking you off, find the minor who sends the signal you want them to hear and vote for HIM.

Better late than never with this New Yorker piece

[ThousandStars]

Before spouting off on this thread, you may want to read this article from The New Yorker about what political scientists think about voting behavior.

Vote Anyway!!!

[FragHARD]

>>you should be eager to let your more informed neighbors make the decision<<

Oh yeah this is really bright...Anyone who thinks they are more informed then some other poor sap is indeed MISinformed, They are more than likely misled by carefully concocted television ads or are just severly outspoken with their minds made up to the party line well ahead of any research into the issues their vote would affect!

To just sit there and not vote while it is your right/privilege/duty is just lazy or something... I don't know but I would not let it stop me from voting if nothing else get some dice ;=).

DISCLAIMER:The above statement is the property of me and I fully endorse it, FragHARD

Voting causes you to become informed.

[labradore]

I believe that the odds are that if you do vote, you are much more likely to become informed and more useful to the society and to yourself than a lazy, non-participatory ignoramus. When a small fraction of the people vote, the candidates have less incentive to listen to their constituents because a) their choices as leaders and legislators are obviously not well-scrutinized by the ignorant masses, b) they can statistically determine which population segments are most likely to vote and therefore non-representative population groups tend to amass unnatural political power (e.g. those on the far ends of the political spectrum, the NRA, the senior citizens, etc.) The political will of the voting minority can be more easily gamed by techniques like gerrymandering and by targeting advertising and message development. Overall the actions of the politicians will tend to less and less reflect the desires of the actual majority of the public.

Just vote. You will statistically broaden the reach of the moderate political will, create more opportunity for meaningful commerce of political ideas and reduce the effectiveness of political gamesmanship. Not to mention that your predecessors fought and died for your right to do so. Every time you don't vote, you bring nearer the day when we will again have to make that sacrifice to re-secure our rights.

"Donate"

[ravyne]

"Donate" your vote to a third party is one possible solution. Parties outside the big two usually need to show a certain level of support before they recieve state/federal money for their campaigns or are even allowed to enter the debates. Chances are that many of the people who feel uninformed feel that way because they are not engaged by either of the two major parties and hence, haven't felt a need to educate themselves on the major candidates. By donating a vote to a minor player you can contribute to the loosening of the two-party strangle-hold, which will hopefully lead to more choices to engage more people in the future.

Don't believe the bunk that having more than two parties means we'll never have majority rule either. dispite the fact that our winning candidates have won majority votes, you also have to keep in mind that a LARGE number of eligable voters simply don't vote - accounting for this, I dare-say that we've seldom - if ever - had a true majority leader.

Of course, should you choose to do this, you should pick a third party which is inline with what you stand for. It still is *your* vote, after all.

Lesser of 2 evils -- Pure ignorance

[mp3phish]

"If you don't like either candidate, simply vote out the incumbent."

This is one of many excellent solutions for those who "can't decide who to vote for" or are afraid of "voting for the lesser of two evils".

You people need to get a hold of yourself. If you are talking about the lesser of two evils, or you are thinking of it, then your doing more damage than good. There is RARELY the lesser of two evils. Go back with your 20/20 heindsight and tell me of all the elections you can think of, where you voted the lesser of two evils, or didn't vote, and someone came into power and ruined everything you stand for?

I'm sorry folks, but this is serious. If you can't be an adult, sit down, and figure out that one of the candidates is more in line with your principles, then you have a serious problem and maybe you SHOULDN'T be voting.

It is extremely RARE if the only two options are so evil that you cannot come to a common ground with either of them. If this is the case, you have serious mental problems, either that your just ignorant. This is not to offend anyone, because I know a lot of people who say they voted for the lesser of the evils. But seriously people. This isn't rocket science, and if you are talking like that then you need to shut up and quit filling people's heads. If you don't trust either candidate then you had better figure something out because you have trust problems.

In summary: If you are talking about voting for the lesser of two evils, you really do have some serious issues you need to address on a personal level.

(maybe now and then there really are two evil people as the only option, but seriously, in these national elections, are you serious?)

Re:Lesser of 2 evils -- Pure ignorance

[Reziac]

I've only seen one election where both major-party candidates were such slime that I could not bring myself to vote for either one (and the minor-party candidates weren't anyone I considered competent, so no one there I cared to vote for either). That was one of the very few times I've withheld my vote. Having to do so (because I could not ethically support any of them for ANY reason) was even more disappointing because one of the slimes had, through dishonest tactics, defeated a very GOOD candidate in the primaries.

But as you say, usually there is SOME point that makes one candidate more appealing than the other, so it's not really "lesser of two evils" but rather, "which one has more good ideas than bad ideas?"

Re:Lesser of 2 evils -- Pure ignorance

[Hrodvitnir]

I am fiscally conservative, but socially liberal. This means if I vote the two-party system, I must often choose between voting for someone that may remove some of my rights or rights of people i respect, or for someone that will tax me for services that I feel are unnecessary or excessive.

Hence, lesser of two evils.

I could vote third party, but most until we revamp our election process, that choice is usually just allowing others to choose for you.

Re:Lesser of 2 evils -- Pure ignorance

[mp3phish]

Get over yourself. The world society, the one you live in, is based around compromise. Maybe you have heard of it before. There is nothing so special about you that makes your opinions so important that a candidate should be chosen just for your individual personal beliefs. Opinions are like assholes. Everyone has one, and everyone's is different. The rules apply to you too. If you can't find a candidate that you can support based on your personal principles, go back to step 1 and read my original post. Quit bitching that the only candidates that have a chance to win don't agree with you on 100% of the issues you care about. It is as simple as this. Even IF you truely believe both candidates are exactly weighted for and against to the same degree in your opinion, you STILL have your personal voting strategy to apply to any given race(based on your cause), which should make it even easier to decide on a candidate. If you believe one party is corrupt more than another, and you believe in each candidate 50% exactly, then your choice is obvious to support the candidate of which party you want in power at that given time. If you think that both candidates are evil, then you need to go back and re-read what I wrote above. You aren't special because of your beliefs. Everyone votes based on their principles, and if you haven't yet determined principles you believe in which are compatible with candidates for office, then you have more problems than who to vote for.

I'll let you in on a little secret. There isn't a single person out there who agrees with any single candidate on every issue, or even most issues. Pretending that you are special because this little rule applies to you doesn't change the reality of the situation.. Every voter disagrees with those they vote for. That is the nature of society in general context, and in the context of the US Government. Even with ideal candidates, you will disagree with them. This is because everyone has different beliefs and so there is no group of candidates that could line up with every single person. Yes, I'm touching on that compromise word I mentioned earlier.

I am not trying to put you down, I just think people need to wake up and smell the coffee before they start spouting off ridiculous statements like your post.

Re:Lesser of 2 evils -- Pure ignorance

[Hrodvitnir]

Excuse me if I came off as self-centered. I merely offered up my point of view on voting, as it is the only POV that I think I'm qualified to describe.

Compromise is good and all, but for compromise you generally have my choice, your choice, and the middle-ground. However, we've only really got two choices in our current political climate.

Re:Lesser of 2 evils -- Pure ignorance

[silverdirk]

Because of course nobody who is sane could possibly vote other than the way I do. I mean, to even have the slightest doubt in my party is a sure sign that someone is a fool. How can someone possibly even call it a "decision". I think it more akin to a logical consequence. Either you're with us, or you're one of those raving other-party nutjobs that disgrace this planet with their nonsense. Anyone who can think coherently enough to weigh the issues would obviously not vote for them, and if somehow you end up in a state of indecision, it means you have multiple personalities of which one is a raving lunatic, and you need to seek mental help to get that personality silenced so that your unencumbered sane personality can vote for my party.

Why isnt there a party to change system?

[Jasper__unique_dammi]

It seems to me that no-one is actually for either the democrats or for the republicans. And most people think that corporations have too much influence over politics.
So why doesn't anyone make a party dedicated to change the system? There are things that can be done against "malicious" lobying, like making a lobying department, where all the lobying is out in the open.(other lobying prohibited) Or politicians, like in the senate may only get paid by the government for their seats, and not by corperations. (ok, how it should precisely be arranged is more complicated)
There is probably more wrong with US politics, i read earlier something about a "daylight rule"(sorry cant find link, maybe got name wrong) proposed for the senate, because the laws/budget spendings passed didn't actually get read. This was partly because the texts that embodied them was in order of 10^3 pages, and time to read them too short. It seems to me that usually so much paperwork isn't actually nessesary, and effort should be spend to say it in much less words.
The party could also try get people to create new parties. I feel this is nessesary, because america only has three parties. (Including Nader)
Maybe with less fuss the distinction between the parties gets clearer. In the meanwhile, people who dislike both democrats and republicans, should cast a protest vote, as someone else said.

Re:Why isnt there a party to change system?

[tftp]

So why doesn't anyone make a party dedicated to change the system?

Too few people realize such a need, and they don't have money and connections needed for this monumental job. But if they are finally successful, their candidate will wake up one day in a cheap hotel room with a dead girl sharing his bed, while the police is breaking the door down, and photographers following on their heels.

Re:Why isnt there a party to change system?

[Jasper__unique_dammi]

Yes thats true. I remember writing a similar thread, in which i noted this danger.(cant find it though, also not in my posts-history, maybe i wrote it and didnt post) I wouldnt know anything that can be done about such lowly ways to attack a movement. Guess good security, lawyers, maybe it is just something that the people supporting the change have to take in and continue. Even if they believe the allegations that their leader killed the girl, it doesn't mean the point the leader had is invalid.
It is not so much that you need money for it i think, because if you try using money to get it done, you just become part of the system. (indeed, finance it) Its just that people must recognize the problem, and be willing to do something about it. If that is the case, word of mouth can just be the advertisement.
I feel i have been using the word "system" too freely, since i dont want it to wander into the meaningless-zone, i'll say that i meant by the "system" the current state of affairs, with intransparent lobbying, intransparent and maybe stupid decision making. (as in the congress not reading bills) Lack of proper media coverage, too much focus on the lead-people, to much dirt-throwing during campaigns.

BTW i am Dutch (maybe well out of the way of actually having to do anything, and easy to speak for me)
BTW2 some of the discussing about politics could be more civilized. In /. for instance I have seen several instances of people calling people "leftish" or communist. I myself think America is way to much to the right, and should do much more to improve poorer communities, like education.(everyone should be able to get a decent education, also after high school) Also, do you have different levels of tax for products of different "luxery" and different wages?

Re:Why isnt there a party to change system?

[tftp]

Also, do you have different levels of tax for products of different "luxury" and different wages?

No, USA has no differentiation. Rich and poor pay the same sales tax on everything they buy. A few categories, primarily food, are exempt: link.

some of the discussing about politics could be more civilized. In /. for instance I have seen several instances of people calling people "leftish" or communist.

USA has a history of using the word communism as a curse, and most people don't want to stop and think how stupid this position is. People are raised here to believe in The System (no, you are not overusing the word) and anything that doesn't conform is seen as deviant, to be corrected by force, preferrably through bombing by remote control.

Re:Why isnt there a party to change system?

[Jasper__unique_dammi]

Thanks i searched some more and found(easily) this wikipedia article. So poorer people do pay less.
* 10%: from $0 to $7,550
* 15%: from $7,551 to $30,650
* 25%: from $30,651 to $74,200
* 28%: from $74,201 to $154,800
* 33%: from $154,801 to $336,550
* 35%: $336,551 and above
Richer people do pay more in this sense, but more then 336k$/yr is ridiculous, they should pay! In my country:
* Part of the income from EUR 0 to EUR 17,046: 34.15 % of EUR 17,046 is EUR 5,821
* Part of the income from EUR 17,046 to EUR 30,631: 41.45 % of EUR 13,585 is EUR 5,630
* Part of the income from EUR 30,631 to EUR 52,228: 42 % of EUR 21,597 is EUR 9,070
* Above that: 52 %.
Guess, relatively poorer people pay more in NL, on the other hand, we do have more social security from which money goes to them.(And we should with our levels of tax!) And the afforementioned "luxeryness" tax.

Plato on Politics

[Unknown_monkey]

This was in our PAC meeting today
"One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors" - Plato

So if don't participate, you must think you're superior.

A Responsible Vote is Better than No Vote at All

[kbolino]

The simple answer is no, you should not vote. In the simplest terms, an uninformed vote is an irresponsible choice, and as such is one that you should not make.

To take things beyond the black-and-white, voting is a fundamental right. The founders hoped that Americans would make informed, responsible decisions. But they knew that would not always be the case.

If you are going to vote, take twenty minutes and do some Google searches. Know the candidates, know their positions, and know their records. Remember that you don't have to vote in every race: you may have strong feelings about governor, but might not know anything about the clerks of the courts. That's okay; you can choose to vote in one race and not another.

There is a difference between being informed and being influenced: there is a lot of propaganda, a lot of nonsense. You must remember that every candidate wants your vote, and will likely do whatever it takes to get it. They want party hacks, leaning moderates, and even crazies. They'll appeal to whomever they can, and you must be wary of it. I find that these tactics can be useful in your decision-making process, but not exactly how the candidates intended. If candidates run particularly dirty campaigns, focusing all of their attention on smearing and belittling their opponents, then that may be a mark of how they will conduct themselves in office.

And remember, there are not always massive differences between parties. There's a lot of overlap. Often, you'll find that you agree with both candidates some of the time and disagree with them some of the time. In order to make a decision with which you would be comfortable, you'll have to arrange some mental priorities: Is the economic situation important to me? Is the social situation important to me? Is foreign policy important to me?

I hope that some of this might help. I would not discourage anyone from voting: it is a right, and there is no reason why you should not exercise it. But it is a big decision, and it does carry consequences. Know before you go, and be comfortable with what you do. If you make a mistake, then you'll be better informed for next time!

Is An Uninformed Slashdotter...

[Anonymous Coward]

...better than no slashdotter?

YOU be the judge!

Re:Let me answer your question with this statement

[floydden]

You are SO right, everyone who can vote should. I am one of the laziest people that I know and if I can keep track of how our legislators vote, then anyone can. Congress.org has a place to sign up to track what they actually do and how they vote. If I do not like the way that they usually vote, then I vote for their opponent. It is that easy from top to bottom.
There is also the fact that when you don't vote, you are spitting on the graves of everyone who has fought for the right to vote.

uninformed voters cause expensive elections....

[happy_place]

IMO, one of the reason there's so much money required to run a political campaign is due to uninformed voters... Why else create little signs and stick them in random places all over the place? It's the whole name-recognition/logo marketting mentality. I mean if you're an uninformed voter why should you care if the car in front of me has a political bumper sticker!? --Ray

what about instant runoff?

[sortadigital]

Instead of choosing between the "lesser of two evils," what about just doing every election as instant runoff? You rank multiple candidates in order of preference, and the candidates that get the least votes are elimated. Repeat until one remains.

Why do you choose ignorance?

[gorehog]

The question here is not should you vote but rather why do you choose to be uninformed? You SHOULD vote, absolutely. There is no excuse for not voting. You should make an informed choice, absolutely.

See, you are asking "Should I represent myself?" Would you like me to decide for you? Because I voted. I made the decision for you. And so did some old lady with a shopping bag and so did a White Supremacist in Georgia, and so did a Jewish lawyer in Brooklyn, and so did a CEO of an Oil Company, and so did a truck driver, etc, etc, etc. We're all deciding for YOU what kind of world YOU will live in.

It's important for you to vote simply so the politicians know to reach out in your direction next time. You can vote for a third party, or even write in "I dont know what to vote for" but you SHOULD ABSOLUTELY VOTE.

I'm a Democrat/Green. I know you're likely to vote against my agenda. You should still vote.

If you feel uninformed then read up. Trust your decisions. Decide what kind of world you want to live in, decide how you want that to happen, then vote for the candidates who will help you get there.

Otherwise, if you truly feel that you are uninformed, and cannot become informed, well, then thats a whole other bag of cookies.

But it's so easy!

[misfit815]

It hardly takes any effort to become informed. With sites like VoteSmart, OpenSecrets, FactCheck... even your local paper's site, you can become more informed over the course of 20-30 minutes than most people who *do* vote.

Re:Let me answer your question with this statement

[Fizzog]

"One final comment - Voting breeds more informed voters."

Not only that, more people voting means that political parties have to appeal to more voters.

If only 60% of people vote then a party only needs to appeal to the rabid 31% of people to get a majority.

If 100% of people vote they have to appeal to far more people. They can't get by just motivating the rabid party supporters, they have to compromise on their hard-line positions in order to appeal to other non-party aligned voters.

Even if a voter is completely uninformed and can only make random choices on the ballot this time around, the fact that they have voted is going to cause the parties to have to appeal to more people next time.

Get out and vote people!

Start small if you must.

[peacefinder]

Ideally, you should get informed. This is your country. You are part owner. Assume your responsibilities and get informed.

But of course, that may seem a dauntingly large step. If it's too intimidating, then start small. Almost every election has several races and issues to be voted upon. So pick one. Get informed about that issue. Read the information provided by the candidtaes, or the initiative text or whatever. Ask your friends. Read the papers. Check out local blogs. Think about it. Form your own opinion, then vote accordingly.

Leave the rest of the ballot blank if you must. There's no penalty for undervoting, so just vote on what you know. It's not that hard.

Try again next election... but pick more than one thing to vote on.

Don't wait, just get started.

More dangerous than uninformed is underinformed...

[Junta]

I'll wager the majority of the population goes to vote with nothing more than the TV ads and aggressive mailings/telemarketing calls to guide them, i.e. underinformed to misinformed.

This means:
-The candidate that will push policies that align well with the views of the majority of the constituency may lose to the slime ball who sinks the lowest and sways the most 'sheep' to vote for them. A strong factor is stressing things that have nothing to do with policy, or when they do focus on the opponent's voting history/plans they do so in a headline sensationalist way (i.e. 'He voted against the PATRIOT act, would you want an unpatriotic representative?').
-Your pool of likely candidates to win consist solely of those who already powerful and wealthy, who can either afford to fund such shallow campaigns or align themselves with those who do, at which point you can be assured they are likely to have no grasp on the 'common' person's experience, and/or have agreed to completely be the bitch of the rich and powerful. If a very level-headed but middle-class person of no particular extraordinary means who is independent would be the best candidate and widely popular, he will still not get into the media outlets. This used to be an unfortunate fact that people could not easily overcome, but now with the internet people have a venue to campaign, but *only* if the voters would proactively research the candidates. That's the up and down of the internet, anyone can publish, but only those that want to read will.

A lot of people argue that the uninformed balance out between both parties, and that's a bad statement to make. First the implication is that no independent or third party candidates should ever matter. Secondly, truthfully speaking, there are almost *no* uninformed voters, just those with useless information or bad information they are brainwashed into thinking is important. If they were truly uninformed, they wouldn't even recognize the words 'democrat' or 'republican' and being significant and different from 'independent', 'libertarian', 'green party' or what have you.

The result is that we have a system consisting of two parties that have ceased to mean much at all, with independent and third party candidates consisting largely of overly extreme viewpoints. If someone were, say, a republican truer to the original creed of reduced government, but not overboard, in a sane system that candidate could be libertarian, but if they are moderate they will jump into the republican camp even though the party doesn't represent that anymore, because it's the closest 'realistic' fit. Republicans *vaguely* are about reinforcing the current social structure and trusting business to manage the welfare of the economy, but not much more can really be said, some would cut back on government size and spending, some would increase both. Democrats are vaguely about increasing social programs, but again it's not a hard rule and not much else can be discerned. For example, based on the widespread principles, the occurrence of democrats rightfully criticizing a lack of fiscal responsibility in the republican party should be exactly backwards, but it's happening.

Re:Let me answer your question with this statement

[Anonymous Coward]

That's why direct democracy doesn't work. However, you'd be hard pressed to find any examples of direct democracy. We are actually a replublic and that's why people describe our system as being a "representative democracy." All we really vote for is representatives and then they make the actual votes/decisions.

Vote even if 100 dummies cancel out my vote

[dmadzak]

Here is why. If more people vote the politicians have more people to be accountable to. If less people show up the special interests gain more power because they will vote no matter what. The more people the less influence the groups will have due to them being a smaller percentage of the voter pool.

Re:Let me answer your question with this statement

[noz]

It puts more power in the hands of the stupid.

Do the stupid have less right? And if the most important American right is the right to vote, you should probably pay attention.

Re:Let me answer your question with this statement

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree. The person postig the original question obviously has access to a web browser - 30 seconds of research is better than not participating at all. It isn't like the fact aren't out there. Check your state's website to start (Example in Washington: http://access.wa.gov/government/voting.aspx)

It's like the SAT

[el cisne]

It's like the SAT, just answer 'C' for everything you don't know.

Re:Let me answer your question with this statement

[kbielefe]

I think at one point in history the party affiliation of a candidate would have stood for something.

It still does. While there are notable major exceptions, they are rare enough that the media tends to frequently emphasize the difference, making it hard to miss. For example, you often see a sentence that starts something like, "Senator Specter, the pro-choice republican who chairs the judiciary committee, ..."

It's still easier to define a candidate by the exceptions to the party platform. For example, my congressman and both of my senators are all members of the same party. I check the congressional record every day, so I know they agree with the party line the vast majority of the time, but I also know what few specific issues they disagree on. It's easy enough to keep straight that they only surprise me once or twice a session.

I would recommend to any "uninformed" voter, to spend a few minutes reading the current republican platform and democratic platform, bearing in mind that they were written at the 2004 national conventions, decide which platform he agrees with more, and vote a straight ticket. The chances that he will select a candidate that deviates so far from the platform that he wouldn't have chosen that candidate are slim. Chances are that an informed straight ticket vote will make him happier with his representation than a pure random choice or letting someone else decide would.

Just informing himself enough to know what party he currently agrees with most is not ideal, but is definitely better than nothing.

It doesn't matter either way.

[XiticiX]

The electoral college can choose to throw away your vote and choose someone for themselves, anyways.

Re:It doesn't matter either way.

[belg4mit]

Umm, this is not a presidential election. Secondly, depending on where you live your
state's representatives in the Electoral College may be bound by law to vote the will
of the people.

Re:Let me answer your question with this statement

[lymond01]

he people smart enough to consider this question are probably more intelligent than 85% of those who actually will vote. Therefore, not voting because you don't think you are informed enough results in fewer votes by smart people. It puts more power in the hands of the stupid.

Modded "insightful" for calling people stupid? Thoughtful does not equal smart. Decisive does not equal stupid. There are lots of people who step right up and, without knowing the issues or the candidates, vote on their party line. I'll be the first to say that it would be better if this weren't the case, but I wouldn't call those people stupid. Sheep, perhaps.

Or maybe just people who let others do the thinking for them. That might be 85% of the populace.

dear god

[kencurry]

This is the most depressing thing I have read all day.

1) if you are too lazy to think for yourself, join a political party
2) apathy is never good, don't ever try to rationalize it
3) if you have a job, live someplace other than the gutter, and especially if you pay taxes, 30 minutes of reading will get you what you need to know. Then GET OFF YOUR LAZY F**KING ASS AND VOTE!!!

It's called "Google."

[PatTheGreat]

I don't pay attention to politics much; heck, I'm only 18 and I have school and a dozen other things to occupy my time. But by golly, when that very special Tuesday rolls around, I find out who the candidates are, google 'em up, and form some opinions. Then, relatively well-informed and with notes in hand, I head on down to the polling place and cast my votes. I don't vote in all the catagories, but I vote in the things I think will make a big difference in my life.

People, just because you aren't informed doesn't mean you can't be.

Re:Do your informed neighbors share your interests

[Anonymous Coward]

whereas even if he went to the polls himself and just picked a candidate randomly, he might have a better chance of casting it for someone whose interests are more closely aligned with his own.

Voting randomly, he does have a *chance* of casting for someone who aligns with his own interests. But he also has and equal chance of casting for someone divergent from his interests (in a two-person race). This cancels the former possibility. In effect, all random voting does is *decrease* the signal to noise ratio and create waste in effort, trees, manpower. Don't encourage random voting!

Waste of time.

[Anonymous Coward]

Instead of wasting your time posting this question to slashdot and then reading all the replies, you could have educated yourself on the candidates in your area and a made an informed vote.

Re:An uninformed vote is STILL a vote that YOU cas

[wooshoofoo]

thanks for the flame. it's my first!

Re:Let me answer your question with this statement

[Lord Ender]

If you don't know anything about any of the candidates, you are reduced to guessing.

That may be technically true but it is ALMOST NEVER the case in politics. At the very least, a person knows which party's general philosophies most closely match his own.

Voting based only on something like that isn't ideal. But it IS better than the masses who vote because they saw a commercial that said "Kevin Bacon voted against veterans," where the veteran issue was a rider on a bill promote the kicking of puppies.

One is voting on correct but light philosophical information. The other on downright WRONG information. A smart person never would have fallen for that stupid veteran ad, but lots of stupid people do so.

(There actually is a "Kevin Bacon" running for something in Ohio. I don't know how he feels about kicking puppies, and I don't know how many degrees of Kevin Bacon he is...)

Re:Has no effect

[mysidia]

Proposed solution: strew the candidates in random order and put a substantial of "fake", non-existent candidates on the ballots who don't actually correspond to a vote for anyone running. Any vote for one of these "candidates" is an automatic abstain.

Also exclude all party affiliations and incumbent/challenger designations from the ballots, and any hints or special denotations for any particular candidate, because that's prejudicial/free advertising.

At least that reduces the effect of voters who are so uninformed, that they don't know the people they're voting for, or are just picking at random.

Re:Let me answer your question with this statement

[Lord Ender]

It puts more power in the hands of the stupid.

That in a nutshell is why democracy is ineffective, dangerous, and should be abolished.

Democracy is the worst form of government--except all the others that have been tried.

Personally, I think the best answer would be a democracy of educated people. Make the high school curriculum better. Make teaching lucrative enough that intelligent people consider it as a career option. Make economics, formal logic, philosophy, and finance mandatory high school courses.

Re:Let me answer your question with this statement

[Lord Ender]

If by "right" you mean "correct," then yes, the stupid have less of it.

Boycott the vote.

[Anonymous Coward]

My Democratic candidate is opposed to copyright reform, patent reform, and defending my constitutionally protected rights. The same goes for my Republican candidate. I voted with a blank ballot. I showed up and I didn't vote for either of them. The system is broken.

Go with the safe bet

[Lord Bitman]

Vote against the incumbant!

levels of "informed"

[DaveJay]

There are multiple levels of "informed". Sure, you may not know everything about every candidate, but you can always skip votes for the races you know nothing about -- at the same time, you most likely know enough about big-ticket items (the war in Iraq, homeland security debacles, the handling of the situation in Louisiana, and so on) and recent scandals (various politicians who have done very racist, sketchy or illegal things) to at least be able to say "I don't know much about guy A, but I sure know a lot of negative/positive things about guy B, and that's at least a decent reason to vote against/for him.

Besides, if you're worried about "finding out" something you don't like about a candidate later on, yet you're uninformed now, why do you think you'll know more about him later than you do now? And if the issue isn't about something he did in the past, but instead something he does later, well, nobody knows he's going to do it, and no matter how well-informed you might get, nobody's going to be able to predict everything a candidate might do once elected.

Finally, if you subscribe to and trust a news outlet (be it blog, newspaper, or national media conglomerate), they often publish voting guides for folks like you. Of course, if you don't trust the news outlet, you might be played for a patsy, so be careful.

Bottom line: vote, even if you're only voting for the one thing you know about, or against the one person you don't believe deserves to be in office, et cetera. That doesn't mean (for instance) that you need to vote for the people being elected as state judges if you're completely ignorant of such things.

Re:Let me answer your question with this statement

[Lord Ender]

Do the stupid have less right?

If by "right" you mean "correct," then yes, the stupid have less of it.

Mind the opinion of better informed people

[tirnacopu]

The answer to this dilemma is very simple: find a neighbour, a friend, a relative whose opinion you keep in high regard and trust. Ask, and follow the advice given. The not so simple part of this solution is finding such a person - one that you don't just like or bear but respect and perhaps admire.

Why You SHOULD Vote.....

[IHC Navistar]

If you don't exercise your right to vote, then you can't earn the priviledge to complain. PERIOD.

Again for those 'sharp-as-a-bowling-pin' types down in Florida:

If you don't vote, then you can't complain.

Re:Has no effect

[IndigoParadox]

Proposed solution: strew the candidates in random order and put a substantial of "fake", non-existent candidates on the ballots who don't actually correspond to a vote for anyone running. Any vote for one of these "candidates" is an automatic abstain.

They already do this with the American system. They usually place the non-affecting votes under the column labeled "Libertarian" or "Working Families." =OP

Re:Let me answer your question with this statement

[tftp]

In the current situation even an expert would be in doubt.

You're right

[Mr2001]

I realized that shortly after I posted. Sorry.

Re:Let me answer your question with this statement

[anonymous_echidna]

You can be informed by assessing the candidates statements on what they would like to do. While you get some clues, these can be quite unreliable in practice.
You can also be informed by the track record of what a party or candidate does.
As an analogy, in a job interview, what counts for more:
what you promise to do, or what you have already achieved?

Political Interest

[BryanL]

One thing I have not seen much mention of is the fact that even an uninformed voter, by participating in the voting process, has vested interest in government. If I don't vote I can bitch and whine about somebody else running the government, when the fact is I gave them the power to run it by not voting. On the other hand, if I vote for a complete idiot to represent me then I have an interest in what he is doing for me. If he sucks, the next time I can vote for someone else. If I hear rumors of his misconduct or stupidity I am more likely to listen and possibly do some research to find the truth because I have an interest in how my horse is doing. Next time an election rolls around the uninformed voter will probably be a little wiser. If they fail to vote, they will never be interested in the political system and never have a motivation to be informed.

Vote == Good.

[M0b1u5]

If you don't vote, you're a fucking idiot.

And, even if you do NOT want to vote for a republicat or a democran, then for god's sake make a protest vote! Vote for the Legalise Cannabis party, or the "Compulsory serving of Aspargus at Breakfast" party, or the "I Don't Give A Flying Fuck" Party, but you must vote!

By removing your vote, you reduce the compteition for votes, and voter apathy simply encourages the fuckwads to keep on doing what they have been doing: fucking you up the ass for 6 years.

If you're too lazy to vote, and too stupid to vote AGAINST something (after all, a large percentage of votes are not votes FOR someone, but are votes for someone else to GET RID OF someone you dislike.) then you are too stupid to breathe - so stop it, right now.

vote with your friends, neighbors, or family

[Planesdragon]

If you really don't know enough to cast an intelligent vote, you should be eager to let your more informed neighbors make the decision." What do you think?

the only person who can make a truly ignorant vote is someone who does nto know anyone who can make an informed vote.

If you don't have teh time or incalnation, exercise on a smaller level the exact same choice you're making when you do go vote "intelligently." Pick someone you trust to make a descision you can't devote the proper time to, and grant them the weight of your voice.

Find a friend you trust on these issues, as them who THEY're voting for, and follow along.

Re:vote with your friends, neighbors, or family

[belg4mit]

Just what we need, more sheeple. Now if you'd said "Ask your friend *why* he intends to
vote A instead of B," that'd be good advice; especially if one asks multiple friends.

uninformed voting is worse for you

[tyme]

I vote, but only in races that I know something about. The logic is simple: If I don't know enough about the race to choose which side I would want to win if I had done the research, then I'm as likely to hurt my own interests as I am to help them, so I might as well do nothing. It's sort of a hipocratic principle for politics: first, do no harm.

I simply can't stand the idea that I may, inadvertantly vote for someone or something I detest (or against someone or something I admire) out of ignorance, but I can live with the idea that I stood by and let events take their course. I also don't encourage others to vote unless they have a pretty good idea what they are voting for or against and why, under the same theory.

Now, I'm not particularly apathetic and am reasonably well versed on national matters and candidates for state-wide office, but I'm completely in the dark about most ballot measures (unless the measure has gotten a spectacular amount of press coverage, which most don't), school board candidates and judges, so I tend not to vote in those categories. I'll vote for state legislature, governor, congress, senate and the president, but everything else is below the radar.

Re:Let me answer your question with this statement

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

It puts more power in the hands of the stupid

On the other hand, intelligence allows you to work well with the information you receive. You can form intelligent opinions, filter out the FUD and the BS, etc. If you are ignorant, you don't have the data in the first place. It's no use shifting the power from the less intelligent and informed to the smart and the ignorant.

Not that I really believe in smart/dumb or informed/ignorant. It all seems so relative these days, and seems largely dependant on who you agree with.

You should NOT vote unless you like the system

[fyngyrz]

Not voting isn't a neutral action, it helps the incumbent.

So? When the incumbent is just as evil, just as blatantly operating outside the limits set by the constitution, when the government itself is completely, utterly out of control, as are the parties, as are the corporations, what difference will helping the incumbent or the challenger make? You are proceeding from an invalid position, and that is, the presumption that politicians are a force for good, or at least, that one might be a force for less evil. This has not been demonstrably true for many years, at least in the USA.

Even if you do know every policy of all of candidates, you're not going to agree with all of the policies of any one candidate.

I don't agree with any of the policies of any of the candidates. I find them repugnant, in point of fact. Furthermore, I am personally unelectable because just about no one is willing to believe that they are invested in an evil and corrupt system, and no minor party exists that represents even a tiny fraction of my views. They're all blind and bloody optimists, as near as I can tell. The libertarians are the closest thing to reasonable, and they are a confused bunch of puppies.

Election day means nothing to me. You're either going to have democrats or republicans come out on top. They'll both continue to wreck the country, distance themselves from the founders and framers, blithely ignore the very idea of liberty, and steal from me using coercion, or violence if I am foolish enough to resist said coercion. They've taken my home under false pretenses and for grossly insufficient compensation (supposedly for the Tock's Island "dam"... which they never built and incompetently turned into a park) they've used my taxes to invade a sovereign country that was not attacking us and murder untold numbers of innocents, they've suspended habeas corpus, they coddle, support and project religion to an unconscionable degree, they've criminalized many forms of sexuality, free speech, all manner of personal choice, they've actually co-opted the voting process, even the voting hardware, they lie about each other and themselves, they are operating completely outside the bounds the constitution lays out... Voting is the opportunity to ask for more of the same, and no less.

Voting puts forth the very strong implication that you support the way the system works, as you are willing to participate. Well, I don't support the way the system works, as far as I am concerned, it is about as broken as it can get and still superficially resemble the occasional fragment of democratic procedure or any vestige of a republic well enough to fool the middle part of the gaussian.

Voting offers the sheep the illusion of control, without even a chance of actually handing any degree of such control over. If you enjoy voting, you should probably be examining what your core values stand for. If anything.

So that's why I don't vote. No point. Douche and a turd.

Re:You should NOT vote unless you like the system

[Dun Malg]

Voting puts forth the very strong implication that you support the way the system works, as you are willing to participate. Well, I don't support the way the system works, as far as I am concerned, it is about as broken as it can get and still superficially resemble the occasional fragment of democratic procedure or any vestige of a republic well enough to fool the middle part of the gaussian.

Well put. I too refuse to participate in the charade-- unless they include a single checkbox on the ballot reading:

[ ] Revolution

Until another way presents itself, I am forced to use abstention as the nearest thing to a vote of no confidence. What do you suppose would happen if they held an election and nobody showed up...

Re:You should NOT vote unless you like the system

[Anonymous Coward]

Voting is NOT the way that you show you support the system.

PAYING TAXES is the way that you show you support the system.

If you want to withdraw your support from the system, come up with some way to stop giving them the money that pays for it. Move to another country for a while if you must.

As it is, what you're talking about is like going to a gathering where people say "Hey everybody chip in 5 dollars and let me know what kind of pizza you want and we'll use that to figure out what kind to buy. Then you say 'I do not support the purchase of pizza, so I refuse to pick a topping. But here's the $5 I owe you for it."

Re:You should NOT vote unless you like the system

[MBGMorden]

What do you suppose would happen if they held an election and nobody showed up...

Bush would win by a landslide?

Re:You should NOT vote unless you like the system

[bodan]

I don't know, deciding to start a revolution through the elective process sort of defeats the whole purpose, don't you think?

I can almost see the news reports:

The Florida Supreme Court finished evaluating the results of the recount, and decided in favor of the revolution. The recount was requested by presidential candidate Bush the IIIrd, who alleged massive election fraud by the people. The decision is final, with no possibility of appeal to a higher court. The current president will finish his mandate in two weeks, at which point the revolution is scheduled to start, it is believed at 9:30 on a Monday.

Re:You should NOT vote unless you like the system

[hswerdfe]

we have freeks up in the north. Edible Ballot Society

1. obtain your ballot
2. eat your ballot in protest!
3. profit.

this plan is 100% guarantee of profit!

Re:You should NOT vote unless you like the system

[Anonymous Coward]

If you want to withdraw your support from the system, come up with some way to stop giving them the money that pays for it. Move to another country for a while if you must.

Because it so easy to just move in another country. The people there are all waiting to welcome you with flower necklaces and all. Do you know how much paperwork it is to move in another country? I don't think that "political asylum" will seen as a good reason in such case.

Re:You should NOT vote unless you like the system

[Anonymous Coward]

So what do you do instead?
(No snark here; let's have a civilized discussion.)

Re:You should NOT vote unless you like the system

[fyngyrz]

The day one refuses to pay taxes is the day one must pick up a weapon, or sacrifice what remains of one's liberty. I am not prepared to do the latter for citizens that are unaware that there is even a problem. Taxes are not "voluntary", despite the wording to that effect; they are both imposed and collected using coercion, coercion backed by the threat of violence to both liberty and property. Refusing to fund the government is precisely as revolutionary as walking up to the white house with a weapon. I don't believe that is a reasonable course of action. If the citizens wake up and politically change the system (and I'm not talking about voting, I'm talking about wholesale replacement of the congress, and senate, and the vast majority of legislation, particularly with regard to constitutionality), I will participate. However, I'm not going to attempt to lead the unwilling to a trough from which they refuse to drink at a cost to my family of everything we have.

I've taken the time to note what is wrong here, in a forum that arguably has some pretty smart people running around in it. What do I get? A lecture on "statistics", delivered from someone of obvious intelligence, yet with blinders on so tight their eyes are squished back to their ears.

I would not sacrifice my circumstances for this person. Nothing would be gained.

Re:You should NOT vote unless you like the system

[fyngyrz]

So what do you do instead?

First of all, I speak my mind, and I try to be clear about it. I respond to my critics, unless I feel they are not serious. You see this here. You also see direct attempts to muzzle (moderation: "troll"... statements: shut the fuck up... etc) which arise from those opposed to free speech. It'd be frightening if it wasn't so pitiful. If you search my comment history here, you'll see a broad spectrum of remarks and responses along these lines.

Secondly, I contribute funds to causes that I see as creating effects that are counter to mainstream politics as usual. Not everyone can do this, but I can, and I do.

Third, I study specific areas of law with regard to how those laws mesh (or not) with the constitution. I am working on my law degree (at age 50+) so as to have the technical chops to maneuver within the system, or at the very least, have an understanding of what is wrong with it.

Re:You should NOT vote unless you like the system

[Anonymous Coward]

TV coverage of the Revolution is brought to you by Coca-Cola and Anheuser-Busch.

Re:You should NOT vote unless you like the system

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with what you're saying-- the system has pretty much become entrenched in a way that there is no sane way out.

The poster before you said that not voting is a neutral action that helps an incumbent. Of course it is, but so is voting for that person. I've come to view the system as: if you don't vote, you're not helping the problem; if you vote, you're contributing to the problem. There is no option "solve the problem".

Our system is a free system that allows anyone to vote in anyone to change things (presumably for the better). However, this is a false sense of control. Of course we can vote people in to fix the problems, but those currently in control have the bulk of the population trained to believe that they don't want it. It's a prison with no walls-- and I find that very scary. It's like the circus elephant trapped by a flimsy rope to a pike-- it could break the rope but it's trained to think it cannot, that it is an unbreakable as a heavy chain.

I think a better option to voting is to run against these people, but I find that premise equally bleak. People, while they believe things should be better, seem to not trust honest politicians. People would rather have a politician who is honest about that fact that he usually lies, than one that is just plain honest. Couple this with the fact that the competition usually has no problems with using unethical tactics that make the honest person seem evil, and you have another bad situation.

So then, what can be done? I saw another poster said we should not pay taxes. Doing so gets your remaining liberties stripped away and may even land you in prison. In fact, I've seen some references to situations where people _did_not_ have to pay taxes legally, however exercising this right has gotten them into trouble. The government wants there cut and seems only willing to negotiate on the parts they find trivial. I have no problem with the concept of paying taxes, be it a little or a lot, but I want two things: to have the money well spent, and to be able to live in a more-or-less comfortable way. However, I really have no control (or rather negligible control) over either of these points-- it's pay what the people I cannot vote out say is fair, or be in trouble.

I am perfectly willing to vote for people I support, but, to date, I have not been finding these people, so I have not been voting-- I will not vote for people I do not support. It generally comes down to: vote for the person currently in control, or vote for the person who wants to be the same. There really is no third option, even when other people run.

I think, outside of a revolution (which would currently have no support by most people and thusly be likely to fail), expanding the choices per political office would be a good start. Variety tends to lead to some level of normalcy. Quite often, the few people I've thought about voting for have been not been the "representative of their party", leaving the only to vote for in their party be the person I would never vote for.

A vote-by-rank system, I think, would be better than the current system of vote for Jack Johnson or John Jackson. Then at least the ballots would likely have many choices. By selecting one's top-choice, second-choice, etc. the votes would be spread out in a much more Gaussian way, and thusly the political system would not be so polar.

I believe in being a good and helpful person. Is this really such a disdainful concept? It doesn't seem to be what people want in a neighbor (well, in a nationwide sense anyway).

*Sigh*
--Dave Romig, Jr.

Re:You should NOT vote unless you like the system

[protohiro1]

The cynicism of the libertarians is what will protect us from their policies.

Re:You should NOT vote unless you like the system

[magfrump]

Not participating in a system is NOT the best way to change it.

I agree with an earlier poster in that if all the candidates are repugnant, vote for the challenger. If no candidate can continue as an incumbent, then at the very least none of their mainstream politics will be able to be taken as far. At best some candidate will appear with less repugnant policies.

However when voting on ISSUES rather than CANDIDATES, your argument does not hold. Either decision on a candidate may be bad, because a candidate will get into office. But the choice between enacting a policy and not enacting a policy is not as ethically neutral and WILL OFTEN affect you personally--for example a minimum wage change.

Voting does not give enough power to the people because of the electoral system, I agree. However, to leave the system entirely merely gives what little power there is to the people who don't see the flaws of the system--which could be dangerous.

I know I'm not going to convince anyone who doesn't vote to start voting, but for specific issues, for example defending network neutrality or more relevantly VOTING REFORM, it would be ridiculous not to at least try to voice your concerns.

That's my justification for voting, anyway.

Re:You should NOT vote unless you like the system

[Anonymous Coward]

Shut the fuck up, troll. You're old, and you suck.

Re:You should NOT vote unless you like the system

[Atheose]

*Mod parent +5:

+2 Angry anarchist rantings
+2 Shortcomings and/or failures blamed on everyone but himself
+1 Needs-a-hug

Re:You should NOT vote unless you like the system

[TopherC]

I just wanted to say that I agree with you here, mostly.

But I think you should vote. That's because you are more intelligent than most voters. I'm not really complimenting you here -- the bar so is very, very low these days. Can you read? Good. Have you read any news lately (I think even Slashdot counts)? Great! You're well above the average! Can you tell the difference between rational argument and propaganda, at least some of the time? Congratulations, you're in the truly elite crowd! Not only are you old enough to vote, you're smart enough to vote for a reason. I would rather have people like you voting than any others. I won't tell the others (the masses) not to vote, but for you it's actually important.

Then the question becomes "For whom do I vote?" Well there's no right answer here, since there are never any popular candidates that a reasonable person would want to have in office. That's okay, it's better to have the lesser of two evils. Believe me, it is!

Then there is the question of whether or not your vote really counts. No, it certainly does not. But if people like me can convince people like you to vote, those people can make a difference. So for you not to vote (and me not to ask you to) is not consistent with your (my) desires.

Voltaire

[benhocking]

To quote Voltaire, "the best is enemy of the good". If you're going to demand perfection, you might get nothing. I'd rather have people make some positive steps then do nothing at all. Yes, getting involved is the best choice, but don't force people into thinking that it's all or nothing - because then they'll usually choose nothing. I'd rather people choose the lesser of two evils than allow the greater evil to make a choice for them.

Re:Let me answer your question with this statement

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

And therein lies the failure of democracy. The government is, in some ways, too important for the average person to vote for. That said, democracy is better than the alternative.

It doesn't matter as long as the coloreds don't!

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh whoops, wrong window! I thought I was posting to a Republican neo-con forum. Sorry!

Re:Let me answer your question with this statement

[JerLasVegas]

That is a very good point. I think that the people smart enough to consider this question might very well educate themselves on the issue and actually vote though.

To even consider this question as important means that they are probably going to vote. Those who don't care about voting or politics wouldn't even consider this question in the first place no mater how intelligent they are.

It's really not so hard to get informed...

[ke4roh]

For this election, I started last week doing the deep research on everything from my House representative to the county soil & water conservation board. I went to the county's board of elections page and downloaded the composite ballot - to find out who was running against whom. I searched the net for information on the various candidates, focusing on articles in preference to the candidates' own web sites. I look for endorsements by newspaper editors - because they have been following the issues very closely. They typically document their rationale as well, giving me some more context for making the decision on my own. I look for fair-minded judges, not those who have an agenda plastered over their campaign web sites. I look for candidates aligned with my ideals, and I look for experience relevant to the job. If I'm not sure how to vote, I think of people I know whose opinions I respect (an attorney for a clerk of court recommendation, for example), and ask them. It took me about 3 hours to research 18 contests on the ballot - 10 minutes each, on average - not a bad investment for a quality government, I'd say.

If your county doesn't have the composite ballot on the web site, the daily paper probably publishes a voters' guide on Saturday before the election, oft times including that composite ballot. If you can't plunk down the $0.50 for the paper, the local library will have one and will be able to tell you which issue has the collected information. The librarian will also have a host of other ways to research the issues.

The way I see it, our founding fathers, our ancestors, and our military through today fought hard for us to have the right to vote. We owe them a few hours every other year to do our part for a good government.

VOTE ANYWAY -- it *does* matter in other ways!

[Anonymous Coward]

Usually the people who suggest it isn't worth voting unless you are informed have an agenda -- they suspect that you probably won't vote for them or their political preference ;-)

There is a very important secondary aspect to voting, even if you don't have any idea who to vote for or you don't care about the result (e.g., all options are bad). It isn't about your choice. It's simple: politicians will not pay attention to demographic groups that have low *turnout*. They pay very careful attention to these numbers. I can't recall the exact numbers, but a perfect example of this is youth citizens, which have a notoriously poor turnout, on average. If their voter turnout is, say, 25%, and seniors voter turnout is 75%, whose issues do you think will get more attention from politicians?

This is just one example. Pick any category you think you fit into. Don't show up to vote? That's one less person in your group that a politician is going to care about, and the numbers will eventually add up. You're opting out? So will politicians when they consider whether it is worth putting the time and effort into addressing concerns of citizens like you. What's the point if group X, Y, or Z probably isn't going to show up?

VOTE ANYWAY. At the very least it is a vote for attention.

Responsibility comes with Democracy

[greese1]

You have a responsibility to become informed about the issues. Take the 30 minutes to read about the issues then decide.

Sorry that I don't remember where

[Ogemaniac]

I read it. It was a news article summarizing a peer-reviewed study. To be more specific in what the researchers found, it was noted that those who claimed to be independant but "lean Republican" were actually MORE reliable Republican voters than those who claimed to be Republican. Likewise with Democrats. The researchers noted that self-proclaimed indepedants were more educated than the average, and perhaps didn't like pigeonholing themselves with party labels.

one quick comment

[azakem]

What makes you think the people who are actually voting are better informed than you? The majority of voters probably could not give even a brief overview of their chosen candidate's platform, and their decision was probably heavily influenced by party identification rather than any specific views of their candidate.

Continuing the analogy

[benhocking]

Right now, in Virginia it looks like enough people might be voting for "a swift kick in the nuts" to be taking votes away from "a slap in the face", such that we end up with "a baseball bat to the skull". Luckily, "a slap in the face" still leads by 1,000. (Numbers are 474,376 to 473,136 to 10,514 with 42% responding.)

Re:Let me answer your question with this statement

[Chasuk]

> Informed-ness is in the eye of the beholder.

No, it isn't. If you don't know anything about the candidates, then you are uninformed (lacking in knowledge or information) about the candidates. "Informed-ness" might be relative, as there is no rulebook which specifies (on a scale, perhaps) absolute "informed-ness" versus absolute ignorance, but someone who doesn't know shit about candidate X is still uninformed about that candidate, even if there is someone hypothetically who knows less.

Wow...

[fizban]

Wow...

Wow...

There are people who would give their lives for the ability to do what you shrug off so easily. Your lack of enthusiasm for the freedoms you've been blessed with is a DISGRACE and you should feel ashamed. You have brains and you've chosen not to use them, which is the most horrible thing anyone could ever do. Go read up on your elected officials and the issues that you have the ability to affect. There's really not that much to learn and it should only take you a couple of hours. It is unacceptable to either not vote or to cast an uninformed vote. The only right thing to do is to get informed and to fulfill your civic DUTY, a duty that people are DYING for even as I write this. Your lack of respect for their sacrifice is astounding. I don't give a rat's ass what your political affiliation is. I'm a liberal at heart, so I probably disagree with some of the things you and your parents believe in, but I'll be damned if I'll let you sit there and say voting isn't important enough for your time.

Re:Wow...

[Fraser]

I am tired of this twisted argument.

People did not give their lives so that citizens could chose between one group of lying scum and another group of lying scum.

People died to give us the vote, not to validate disgusting evil leaders. To associate these two things is to deny their sacrifice.

I chose not to vote because there is nolonger anyone worth voting for - and it makes me ashamed that millions have sacrificed theirselves for it to mean nothing.

F

Re:Wow...

[Peden]

"freedoms you've been blessed with" Whatever happened to: "We hold these truths to be self-evident"? He has not been blessed with anything, its all those other people living in dictatorships that have been robbed. Its funny you should say that you are a liberal. Liberty is about freedom, freedom to do whatever you choose, as long as it does not hurt anyone else. But I guess its the more modern version of the vote, meaning that "you have whatever freedoms we choose to give you".

Re:Wow...

[Anonymous Coward]

One could also argue that people died to defend one's perogative to do nothing and assume the risks thereby.

Re:Wow...

[Aceticon]

There are people who would give their lives for the ability to do what you shrug off so easily.

- There are people which have given their lifes for the cause of jihad against the western imperialists.
- There are people which have given their lifes to allow their country to keep a colony for longer.
- There are people which have given their lifes to defeat a militia and allow a genocide to occur.
Yet around here we don't go around criticizing people for missing opportunities to hurt westerners or to make money from exploiting the natives/resources of some colony or to kill several people of another etnicity.
(though i'm sure that there are sites for all 3 causes where the "sacrifices of the dead" argument is used in defense of "the cause")

I'm not saying that voting is not important, i'm just saying that bringing up the point that people died for a specific cause is a bad argument.

If somebody gets himself killed for a cause even if thinking it's a just cause (as it surelly happened in any of the 3 examples above), that's because they choose to risk their lifes for that cause. Those which live now should make their own choices out of their own beliefs - not follow somebodies argument about how the past choices of dead people (calling it "sacrifices") should dictate the choices of the living.

---

I would have let this post pass if not for the +5 moderation i see in it and the fact that the argument that "people died for this" is widelly used in convincing people to commit horrible attrocities (usually it goes about on how your ancesters fought and died for some percieved right of your tribe/race/religion/country which is "being threathened" by some "evil others").

I know the parent post is not inciting death and destruction, but his use of this line of argumentation as an openner for berating others for not doing what he thnks they should do pretty much turns my stomach. (sorry about that)

Brasil and the mandatory vote

[jtoj]

In Brasil we have mandatory voting, so one MUST register and vote. This process does not force people to get informed about the
candidates, even with the very massive TV time candidates get.
The uninformed actually re-elect the worst kind of scum over and over, and since they are often the ones with close to
no formal education, they are easily manipulated.
I am sure the uninformed vote is the single most damaging factor in our democracy.

Not just about the candidates on the ballot ...

[Hotawa Hawk-eye]

Two points I'd like to make:

1) In most if not all elections, if you don't know enough about either candidate, you can write in a vote for any one you want. Vote for yourself. Vote for your best friend.

2) When you vote, often you're not just voting for candidates for office. Often you are voting on ballot initiatives. For instance, in Massachusetts, where I live, there were three ballot questions that I voted on, in addition to voting for candidates.

Re:Not just about the candidates on the ballot ...

[belg4mit]

Yes, and some might interesting questions weren't they? Q1 was the only thing properly
discussed. Q3 had a view ads, but they could have gotten their point across much better
if they simply said that they'd like the ability for caregrivers to unionize. And Q2?
A rather bad solution to a problem for which we have better solutions (instant run-off).
I kept a pretty close eye on this election cycle and never saw any discussion of Q2
outside of a few specialty newsletters.

Admittedly uninformed vs. obliviously uninformed

[JourneyExpertApe]

Consider this question. Is it good for someone who thinks of himself as uninformed (like the submitter) not to vote while someone who really doesn't understand the issues but has a strong opinion votes? Surely everyone living in America has a vague idea of his political stance. Is it ok to stand by while someone who believes everything that a religious extremist nut like Pat Robertson says votes? What about the left-wing nut who believes that all conservative politicians are members of a secret cult that is trying to take over the world? I actually think it's the people who fervently support one candidate or party who are less capable of making a rational choice. I think it's better for a slightly informed but rational person to vote than to remain silent. At the very least, it may cause him to take more of an interest in politics in the future.

Re:Let me answer your question with this statement

[surprise_audit]

To be perfectly honest, I think it's about time politicians and the media both recognised that *not* voting is just as valid a political opinion as voting is. Some percentage of non-voters genuinely don't care, and the rest that don't bother to show up are sending the message that they just don't give a flying fuck for the current crop of self-serving assholes that are trying to get themselves elected. Nobody expects to believe campaign promises any more, and it always seems to come down to "who can dig the most dirt" about their opponents.

If any canvasser came to the door and asked who I'd vote for, I'd tell them that I'm likely to vote for anyone who'd go out and pick up all those damned signs that will be left littering the streets for the next month or more. Are candidates responsible for cleaning up after themselves?? If not, they should be, but of course none of the winners would vote for legislation that makes themselves responsible for cleaning up. Maybe the *losers* should be made to pay for the cleanup afterwards, or "tax" the campaign funds for cleanup costs.

Voting = right to criticize

[Anonymous Coward]

The right to criticize the government in power comes only if you have voted in the last election (in a democratically elected government). If you don't vote, then you give up the right to critize the next set of individuals who are elected. Once you have voted, you have the right to criticize the government.

In Australia we have compulsory voting

[Anonymous Coward]

In Australia, we have compulsory voting. Everyone, informed, uninformed or ill-informed all MUST vote or be fined. The theory is that larger numbers will result in more support for mainstream parties, and smaller parties will be disadvantaged. The result should be that extreme views (e.g. Le Pen in France) are less likely to be supported.
In practice, the major parties must hold the middle ground to gain office, and so are both advantagesd by the compulsory voting, and shaped by it. The middle ground will be more to the left than, for example, the US. This is due to more lower socio-economic voters than would be the case under optional voting. Obviously then, the centre left party (Labor) supports compulsory voting more than the conservatives (Liberals). Added to this, we also have preferential voting - you number the candidates 1 to however many. Complex, but it works in creating a very moderate and stable democracy. Oh - and by the way - we have an independent electoral commision which means our elections are up to international standards, unlike the US.

Re:In Australia we have compulsory voting

[belg4mit]

Umm, France actually has compulsory voting too. IMHO, compulsory voting is antithetical
to democracy. If you wish to address the usual issues of apathy, etc. which are used to
bolster the case for this abomination you could go along way by simply enstating a
federal voting holiday.

Re:In Australia we have compulsory voting

[A beautiful mind]

Or just simply vote on Sundays? That's what a lot of countries do...

Re:In Australia we have compulsory voting

[belg4mit]

That's a possibility, but I think that would run afoul of some folks... and we don't
exactly need *more* religion overtly mixed into and polarizing politics. It's not as
if we have a surplus of observed holidays in the U.S. anyways. Creating one (or
co-opting another as I've previously suggested e.g; MLK or Presidents') both makes it
more convenient as is acheivable with weekend voting, but also signals that the
government wishes the public to take the act of voting more seriously: we care so much
we're going to give you the day off to do this and presumably, if we're lucky, few if
any businesses will be open as on any other major holiday so you will not have much
else to do.

How to Get Informed

[Vitamin J]

The candidate in your constituency is there to represent YOUR interests. So to make an informed vote that is in line with your interests, you've got to:

1. List the issues that are most important to you (and your family). Is it taxes, social security, health, security, abortion, same sex marriage, etc etc?

2. Research where the candidates in your constintuency stand on all your important issues.

3. Pick the one that suits you most. If none of them appeal to you, perhaps abstaining from the vote is the most informed choice.

In the ideal representative democracy, the elected candidates represent you. The constituents should be checking up on the candidate's congress voting record and making sure that they are consistent with their election promises / stance.

Voter pamphlets

[yusing]

If you happen to live in a place where voter pamphlets outline the options -- and you have the education to read and understand them -- you can use them to get up to speed on many issues in about an hour. Your vote will then reflect your informed preferences, even if they're not deeply held.

I think these things are wonderful, allowing me to vote on issues after a little contemplation, rather than just a reflex action at poll time.

Re:Let me answer your question with this statement

[dircha]

"Voting isn't about getting everything you want on every single issue. That doesn't happen in a democracy -- you'll have to become dictator of your own nation to realize that little fantasy."

Your snide remark is incorrect. To get your way all the time you must simply share the opinion of a sufficient representative majority on every issue you care about.

And most people are only particularly interested in a handful of national issues.

You also fail to account for positions of principal or conscience. Given a choice only between, say, two pro-life or two pro-choice candidates, it would not surprise me were a considerable number of people to simply abstain from voting in that race. I know people who would never under any circumstances vote for a pro-life candidate. And I know people who would never under any circumstances vote for a pro-choice candidate. Similarly I would not object to a pacifist choosing to abstain from voting in a race given a choice between only pro-military candidates.

A vote to many people is not merely another utilitarian calculus, but rather a personal endorsement of a candidate's character, intelligence, and values.

And to others, a vote lends legitimacy to a system they deem illegitimate. This is also a stance I respect.

How you understand voting is your prerogative, but I encourage others to stick to their convictions rather than be pressured into taking an action they believe to be ethically objectionable. Abstaining from voting is your right. And in a nation where mid-term elections frequently see less than 50% turnout, the votes of those who choose to abstain speak more loudly than those who choose to participate.

An Idea

[Anonymous Coward]

"At the very worst your vote will cancel out someone else who makes a "bad" vote."

Find a person you detest, figure out how s/he will vote, then go and vote the exact opposite. Don't know the issues? Not a problem - let your enemy be your guide (sorta, you know).

Now I wish I had done this.

Half of your ballot is a joke...

[Etherwalk]

On our ballot, we need to select US Senate and House reps, State Senate and Assembly reps, Governor, Comptroller, Attorney General, Family Court Judge, and... was it Superior Court Justices?

In any event, you're lucky if a voter knows much of anything about the federal candidates & Governor. Additionally, most people know only a little bit about state government--or at least about the actors in it. When it comes to court justices, it's insane that you vote them in: the average voter knows nothing about the people running, except for what they learn on the ballot: party affiliation and (based on the name) ethnicity.

Then you've got the political realities, on top of that: how effective someone's going to be representing you depends a lot on what committee assignments they get, and you don't know that when you're voting.

I don't think it's unrealistic to have a public moderately educated about the politics of our country--I just think that it's not done. Instead we get heavy spin from everyone involved, including the news media, and little realistic talk of who's going to be effective at getting what done, and why. Oh, and there's been a sickening amount of negative campaigning this year.

Uninformed?

[Alchemar]

I looked at the ballot, and wanted a clarafication. Uniformed voter, or uninformed cannidate? Most of the time the latter was all that was available. If I am uninformed, I can correct the procedure as long as the press is still influenced by ratings as well as propanda money, legal threats about revealing "classified information", coporate ownership interest, etc, etc, ... When all the available canidates are uninformed I feel like I would have been better off not knowing when I cast my vote. I ended up not voting in several races because of this.

Re:Let me answer your question with this statement

[krotkruton]

That may be technically true but it is ALMOST NEVER the case in politics.

Let's first assume that I'm in that top 15% range of intelligent people in the country you mentioned before.

I live in Illinois. I lean towards the democrats. I know Dem. Rod Blagojevich (whose name I had to look up to spell) has a lot of talk of corruption surrounding him and that he has been cutting funding for education, two things that are important to me. I know little else about him, and nothing about whoever is running against him, including his/her name. Can I make an informed decision? I can when it comes to education: vote against him. Education might be better in the long run, but what would be worse? Normally, I would vote for the dem because, as I said, I tend to lean in that direction, but in this case, I can't bring myself to do it without more information.

The answer is not to just go out and vote for the sake of voting, but to spend some time learning about your candidates for the sake of your county, state, and/or country. If you don't know enough to vote, you shouldn't just vote for the hell of it nor sit at home, you should do your civic duty and put yourself in a place to make an informed decision. The problem is that most people are too lazy to do that.

...which is why I'm sitting in my apartment alternating between a data mining programming assignment and reading slashdot.

Well said

[PCM2]

...and as I'm writing this it's still 6:57pm in the State of California. Your polling place is probably right down the street from your home, and you've still got an hour to get over there. (Tough luck if you're not on the West Coast.)

Re:Has no effect

[dircha]

"Not voting is not neutral: It is supporting the majority or plurality (not incumbents)."

You are employing a very unusual and ethically dubious definition of "supporting".

I have abstained from voting in many races; I am proud of it, I tell others that I do it, why I do it, and I will keep doing it.

Captors have tied you and your family to chairs. You are told to choose whether your wife or your child shall be shot. If you fail to choose, your wife shall be shot, you are told. You tell those fuckers exactly what you think of them. They shoot your wife. Did you support killing your wife?

Wrong Question. Right Answer? GET INFORMED!

[ukemike]

It is the civic duty of an American Citizen to cast an informed vote. If you aren't informed, don't give me any pathetic excuses, GET INFORMED. Watching TV news does not count in my personal opinion. Read read read. Research. Get involved. Learn the issues before election day. Stop with the excuses. Just do it.

Re:Let me answer your question with this statement

[hinux]

I think the best answer would be a democracy of educated people ...

By educated, I hope you didn't mean brainwashed in arbitrary dogma...

It's already been tried by Communism, Fascism, Monarchy, etc. In such authoritarian oligarchies, a select few decide that they are educated and above the "herd" and thus have the legitimate power to rule over all else (or do as they like, bcoz they know best).

Whatever system replaces the present farce, I'd prefer one that had genuine accountability to all people.

Re:Let me answer your question with this statement

[malp]

The people smart enough to consider this question are probably more intelligent than 85% of those who actually will vote. Therefore, not voting because you don't think you are informed enough results in fewer votes by smart people. It puts more power in the hands of the stupid.

Wait. Just because I asked if I knew the candidates' positions, I'm now in the top 15th percentile for intelligence. Cool!

Re:Let me answer your question with this statement

[quinnharris]

If the US military decides to bomb the building your family was in in Iraq, and they get killed, DON'T COMPLAIN. You should have become a US citizen and voted.

If you are declared a "terrorist sympathizer" and executed because you are not unequivocally "with us" DON'T COMPLAIN if you didn't vote. Because if you didn't vote its not murder, and you have no rights.

you shouldnt be uninformed to begin with

[skam240]

This person shouldnt be uninformed to begin with.

seriously.

it's not very hard to go online and get a enough information to form some sort of opinion (however basic it might be) on the candidates running and the initiatives on the ballot (if you live in one of those states).

i am literally disgusted by people who dont vote because they don't know about the issues. it's a nights worth of reading once a year to help make your country a better place. it's your civic duty and the very least you can do for your country.

No vote infinitely better (do you live in a cave?)

[Torodung]

As an example, while I voted in my general election today, I left the entire judicial retention sheet blank, because I had forgotten to download recommendations from the relevant State bar and legal associations. In one judge's case, ten seperate judicial review associations *unanimously* recommended his ouster.

Uninformed voters, in a judicial slate, are likely to vote for retentions across the board, making the ouster of a clearly incompetant justice that much harder. That is what my wife did, as I found out when we talked about it later. Such action in ignorance literally *breaks* the system.

So I believe that if you don't have a reason to vote, you *shouldn't* vote. Partial participation is preferable as well. One should always undervote and refrain from voting in particular races if you have no reason (or clue even) to exercise franchise.

To qualify: I think that party line is sufficient if you are a partisan, but if you truly have no idea and no opinion, leave the matter to people who do.

Additionally, I am appalled that anyone would choose to remain so completely *ignorant* that they would be able to heed this advice for an entire election. Partial participation is fine, but do you live in a cave? Do you care about your rights and freedom at all? There is no graver duty of an American citzen than to participate in his democratic republic. None. For me, this trumps even military service.

Shame on you.

--
Toro

I choose not to vote.

[CherniyVolk]

I don't agree with the stage setting and pre-approved actors. I don't feel like I'm given much of a choice really, and I don't feel that it's going to matter who is voted in, because by virtue of being on the ballot to begin with... the candidates all conform or are inline with those who are already in power already.

I feel that options should be plenty and rich in differences, anything less isn't really a viable option.

It's reported that in the Soviet Union, they "voted" but only had one check box on their ballots. In America, we have a couple of check boxes, but only one ideology to chose from. The only difference between the two systems is how apparent it is to the voter that his vote is completely useless.

For all the respect to those in history that might have strained so hard for a democratic system, what's a bigger shame than me preferring not to vote is that the system has been so corrupted that I don't trust or care for the system. It's not me who has tarnished the vote, but those in power that those who died put so much faith in with keeping the system fruitful.

Re:I choose not to vote.

[belg4mit]

>I don't agree with the stage setting and pre-approved actors. I don't feel like I'm
>given much of a choice really, and I don't feel that it's going to matter who is voted
>in, because by virtue of being on the ballot to begin with... the candidates all
>conform or are inline with those who are already in power already.
Man did you drink the Kool-Aid. Nowhere is it written that we have a two party system.

Re:Let me answer your question with this statement

[WeblionX]

I would assume that by educated he meant the masses being educated. You know, not brainwashed. Which is probably why he used "educated" and not "brainwashed." Just a hunch.

It's easy to get informed

[tm2b]

(I posted this as a follow-up to a child of this topic, but am now appalled that the people crying, "Get informed!" are not helping show people how that actually can get informed.)

The League of Woman Voters publishes a very well respected election guide, known for its even-handedness.

Sure, it won't get every last nuance and will ignore the scandals - but the original question was concerned with a candidate's positions, not who they slept with.

It's too late in the East to use this, but they publish it every election year. Remember it.

Voting helps your district

[nyphot]

I agree with all the folks who say that in an ideal world, one would make intelligent voting decisions and that we can start small.

For my neighbors, however, I encourage everyone to get out to the polls, even if they do nothing but write in a few nonsense candidates. The reason? I live in an inner city neighborhood. Politicians ignore us partially because they don't think they can get many votes out of us.

The theory is that once politicians see that we're a significant voting body, they'll start spending money on us to help keep our streets clean and safe... in order to win our vote.

I suppose the corollary to that is if everyone else stopped voting, our votes would count for more. So... if you live in a middle-to-upper class neighborhood, don't vote! (Just kidding, of course.)

Hoodwinked implies deception

[alcmaeon]

well, alot of us held our noses and voted for him because we didn't think kerry got it regarding the war. we also hoped and prayed that he would leave his big spending, federal takeover of everything, ruinous trade and immigration policies. but alas, we've been hoodwinked. and now he's not even fighting an agressive war. I want my money back!!!

Reading your post indicating you were "hoodwinked" suggests that you had some reason to believe these things about Bush and that somehow he was responsible for suggesting them to you. Neither of these implications is fact. Bush suggested all along in the election that he supported the war and would "stay the course" and that he favored increased war spending and the PATRIOT Act and that he supported "free trade" and "open boarders."

I think the man is a liar and he has lied on many occasions, but he didn't lie about these things. I'm sorry to say it, but if you thought otherwise about his positions you were stupid.

Re:Let me answer your question with this statement

[Psychofreak]

I have yet to cast a complete ballot. I have abstained on many items on every ballot I have cast because I don't care which 6 of 10 judges running for election win. I tend to vote vs candidate issues. Pro-this, anti-that. If I have a reason to "go with the other guy" against the issues, it means that the person who I tend to agree with did something stupid.

In one local represenative race for city council, I had it down to two of 8 people. The person I voted for was helping greet at the polls for my precinct (he lives down the block from me it turns out). He was one of the two I agree with. He got my vote because I saw his face. If the other guy would have been there I would have voted differently. If someone else would have been there, I would have still chose one of the two.

I tend to vote most issues-they are more important than the "who" and are also much easier to research. This means that I voted to less than half the ballot, and abstained the rest. Over half the ballot had people I researched and the result was "are you qualified and credentialed for this position?" That was all the information given in my research sources. They all were, I abstained from the popularity contest.

Most issues affect daily life as a consumer and property owner. "Will my taxes increase?" "Will the local zoo stay a nice place for my family?" "Can I still smoke/not smoke at my favorite pub?" "Will minimum wage increase/decrease?"

Being an ill-informed voter should not stop you from voting on the few items that you have become informed about. You can also send for the absintee ballot which usually has much good information. I looked at those forms a few days ago when starting my research.

Phil

with apologies about my spelling - no spell check on this computer.

You may want to visit

[/dev/trash]

www.dailykos.com
They're calling for the banning of all third parties.

Scary shit.

Re:You may want to visit

[Scudsucker]

Liar. At one point Kos thought the grassroots should form a third party, but decided it was better to reform the existing party of the Democrats instead.

Re:You may want to visit

[/dev/trash]

Uh. I never said Kos himself. Open House Thread #5 or #6 had like 15 or 20 people saying third parties should be banned.

Re:You may want to visit

[Scudsucker]

You said "They're calling for the banning of all third parties," not ".0001% of a days postings on an open message board were from yahoos calling for the banning of third parties", asshole.

Re:You may want to visit

[/dev/trash]

dKos is a community. Therefore 'they' was an appropiate way to describe it. Some people just can't handle the truth, and resort to name calling. This discussion is terminated until you can grow up.

Re:You may want to visit

[Scudsucker]

dKos is a community. Therefore 'they' was an appropiate way to describe it.

I suppose you could see it that way, if you were a complete fucking idiot. No, "they" is not an appropriate way to describe it - that would require it to be a majority opinion. Less than 1% is pretty fucking far from being a majority opinion. And that's assuming you are right in saying that 15-20 posts were calling for the banning of third parties, and I doubt you are.

Would it be fair for me to say that Republicans advocate murder and assasination on TV? Upon being pressed, it would turn out I was just talking about Ann Coulter and Pat Robertson, and unfairly denigrating the hundereds of Republicans who appear on TV every day. If I don't add the word some in there, as in "some Republicans advocate murder and assasination on TV", I would be a liar, and an asshole.

This discussion is terminated until you can grow up.

Liars and idiots should not throw stones in asshole glass houses.

There's always next year

[davmoo]

Maybe next year you can take 30 minutes out of your busy schedule to look over the candidates. And then you can step up and do your duty as a citizen to vote, instead of being the lazy-ass sniveling dumb fuck you were this year.

The only acceptable excuse for a citizen not being informed and not voting is their own death on election day. Anything else is bullshit. No exceptions.

Re:There's always next year

[Ash-Fox]

What about being flagged as a convicted felon? I say flagged, because many people weren't in actual fact.

Re:There's always next year

[davmoo]

Okay, you got me on that one. I hadn't thought about that because I live in one of the (majority of) states (Indiana) that does not permanently ban felons from voting unless that right is reinstated by [appropriate government official]. Only a handful of states are still that restrictive.

Obligatory corruption joke: I don't see why they ban felons from voting, since so many felons are in Congress...

Zeroeth rule for voting

[Anonymous Coward]

When in doubt, or like the article's author lacking information on the candidates follow my zeroeth rule for voting - vote against the incumbant. Incumbancy helps increase the power of the government. Keep government office holders in a state of change or churn and preserve the power of the citizens and the press.

vote weighting based on presidential performance

[User 956]

Actually, that's kind of a good idea. You could tie it to official presidential approval ratings. So, for example, as Bush's approval rating is 35%, everyone who voted for him gets a deprecated vote in the next election, because they voted for a guy that nobody seems to think is doing a good job.

A presidential approval rating above 50% would net a gain in vote value, an approval rating below 50% would net a loss in vote value.

DON'T amend!

[Psychofreak]

I agree! In Ohio there were two non-smoking issues. I am a non-smoker and go to non-smoking restraunts, bars etc when I can.

The first issue was a rigorous fine($) laden pice of work. It meant that small businesses would fold under the penalties because someone lit up.

The second issue was a well thought out bit that called for seperated smoking/non-smoking facilities. Short(ish) sweet, allows for small businesses to make decisions based on their clientel. OK, may not be best on workers rights vs secondhand smoke, but easy to impliment, and proven to work in some municipalities. I voted that down because it was an amendment. Smoking and non-smoking does not belong in the Ohio constitution in my humble opinion.

Phil

democracy means...

[grimwell]

democracy means you get the government you deserve. So get out there and vote, dumb-ass.

Solution for voters in Denver

[tachyonflow]

Here in Denver, we have a solution in place for uninformed voters. It works like this: 1. Show up at the voting centers uninformed. 2. While standing in line for TWO AND A HALF FREAKIN HOURS, become an expert on all the ballot options and issues. In the time you have left over, you may wish to read a book or two, balance your checkbook, learn to juggle, or earn a second college degree by correspondence. :/

Re:Let me answer your question with this statement

[Anonymous Coward]

Go cast a ballot. If you're that uninformed, leave every line blank. Yup. EVERY. SINGLE. LINE. BLANK.

Historically, box-stuffers have just LOVED to take advantage of non-voters. You're entitled to a vote, and disreputable folks are sometimes more than willing to be sure that you get it, whether you're doing the marking or not. Electronically-enabled voting is also vulnerable to this type of exploitation, fwiw...

Re: 3rd Party - Libertarian - send a message!

[The_Wilschon]

As it is sometimes said, both parties are running a train toward a cliff, it is just that one party wants to go off the cliff a litter faster than the other party.

Of course, in the quantum mechanical scenario of a particle heading towards a rectangular well, there is some probability of reflection. That is, if we go towards the cliff just right, there is some chance that we will suddenly be headed back the other direction!


(I know, I know, it is really bad science to say so. I'm not so uptight that I won't whore out my field for the sake of a joke.)

Re:Let me answer your question with this statement

[cptgrudge]

If you don't know anything about any of the candidates, you are reduced to guessing.

What I find interesting are some of the local county sheriff elections. For those in my area, all you get is the name, and close to nobody even knows who they are or where they stand on the issues. All you ever see are the signs in peoples' front yards.

But the interesting part is the way people seem to vote for them: a dead 50/50 split! Almost like they just picked one at random!

I disagree

[Anonymous Coward]

with both Republicans and Democrats on at least two or more (different) major parts of the agendas. I'd much rather vote on specific issues, rather than taking either unpalatable 'package deals'.

Republicans
  - I oppose their goal of force-feeding their religious beleifs down everyones throats.

Democrats
  - Too much tax and spend, too much welfare-state, too much 'help the minorities at the expense of everyone else'

Re:Let me answer your question with this statement

[MrFlannel]

That in a nutshell is why we aren't living in a democracy.

A Democratic Republic is different than a democracy, because the framers knew better than mob-rule.

Remember those people whining to abolish the Electoral College? Mhmm. Guess what we would be without it?
Yep, you win. A democracy.

Surely

[Andy Gardner]

the truly informed voters, don't vote?

Re:Let me answer your question with this statement

[Anonymous Coward]

I consider myself fairly well informed on a lot of issues and with a little research somewhat informed on rest of the candidates on my local ballot. When I don't have time or can't find enough information I use the money raised by a candidate as the tiebreaker. The candidate with the least money raised becomes my choice. Big money is almost never pushing for the interests of the average working stiff.

It's not up to them

[Fullaxx]

What does it matter what other people think? It's *YOUR* vote, do what you want.
If you want to vote, cast a vote. If you dont want to vote stay at home.
Dont let other people tell you what to do.

  and most definatly dont let the Slashdot crowd tell you what to do.

Re:Has no affect (voting, that is)

[Iron Condor]

If voting changed anything, it would be illegal.

Re:Let me answer your question with this statement

[Anonymous Coward]

So, this is a late post by an AC, so it won't go anywhere, but what the heck....

There's a book by James Surowiecki called "The Wisdom of Crowds" where he posits that information/votes gathered from a wide variety of say "differently informed" sources is actually much better than just polling a bunch of zombies.

Okay, it's not really like that, but the point was that it's actually better to have a good mix of people all voting. I forget his three criteria- one was that they weren't all drinking the same kool-aid, ... aw heck, this is the quote from Amazon:

"Wise crowds" need (1) diversity of opinion; (2) independence of members from one another; (3) decentralization; and (4) a good method for aggregating opinions.

So, yes vote even if, nay, especially if you think you are uninformed.

...Next year, since the polls have closed everywhere but Hawaii by now.

Moron

[Anonymous Coward]

You're the same fucking idiot who then bitches about government after not casting a vote. Grow a fucking brain you tard.

Re:Let me answer your claim with a rebuttal

[Jim_Callahan]

The problem with your initial argument is that the demands of historical precedent are satisfied by turning in a blank ballot, thus exercising your right, without actually voting.
 
As for your second argument, I'm just going to say that someone a lot more authoritative on the issue than yourself grants unconditional right to complain about any political desire you wish, regardless of wether or not you vote. It's generally referred to as the first amendment to the US Constitution, and technically it isn't even limited to people who can vote.
 
Regarding your third point, we're not a democracy, we're a republic: it's not a system to bring the will of the majority on every issue, it's a system to place the correct people in power to make the correct judgements while preventing abuse of governmental power. Frankly, I'm rather glad of this, given my experience with the political ignorance of the average citizen. (Preceding assumes that you're in the USA, which seems reasonable given that you refer to 'congress' and not, say, 'parliament', use american syntax, and are on a /. politics thread.)
 
Regarding your advice on selecting a party to vote for, I provide the simple counterexample of switching from, say, republican to democrat: your strategy just failed, because you voted for a clone of the party already in power. You have to be reasonably informed to even select a party that would cause some sort of policy change.
 
And, finally, no, voting does nothing to improve voter informedness of itself. In fact, simple proportioning tells us that the more issues you cast a vote on, the less time you will spend on average considering each issue, since there is a finite span of time for each election and assumably you spend what you can spare in either case.
 
Rebuttal complete. Do I get a cookie or something? 'cause I'm starving over here.

Eh...

[Vaakku]

If you need to ask it on slashdot. It's propably better if you dont vote.

It's simple, actually

[WheelDweller]

An uninformed vote is a vote made by the media. People that don't watch the news, don't know what's going on. And people that don't know history will buy anything the TV and the bloggers say.

If you don't know who Cheney is...the specific _reason_ that Rumsfeld should be fired (not just for attitude) then you shouldn't vote: you don't know what's going on.

Total Ignorance [read this]

[foreverdisillusioned]

I work in a group home for the mentally challenged. Everyone here is legally competent, but they're definitely not functional enough to live on their own (a couple of them might be able to do it if they had someone drop by DAILY to check on them.) Nevertheless, as legally competent adults they all have the right to vote. And, well, I'm not going to sugar-coat this: they know jack shit.

Seriously.

One guy in particular, let's call him Pete, spend the entire fucking day bragging about how he voted for all of these Republican guys. He didn't know they were Republicans, of course, he just knew that they were "good people" and their opponents were "bad." God knows where he got this idea from; probably his cousin or someone he met at work or (most likely) someone he met at church. He doesn't know a goddamned thing about "the issues." Hell, he's a free spirit--I doubt very much he would agree with the Republican's religious-based anti-sex attitudes. And I've heard him remark on several occasions that "we need to get the hell out of there [Iraq]."And for several years he was forced to live on the streets because he had nowhere to live--I doubt VERY much he would agree with the Republicans' tendency to cut our budget (which they do frequently, as we're partially government-supported.)

But it doesn't matter. Someone got ahold of his ear and filled his head with a bunch of horseshit, and he went out and voted before I had the chance to undo the damage.

So yeah, I guess if you wanna be pedantic about it, Pete was informed--he knew that some person (or people) he liked was a fan of these candidates, so that's who he voted for.

And while I hate to admit it, I really don't think that your average American voter is much better. The majority of their decision is based on peer pressure and highly misleading political advertisements, not any genuine analysis of the facts. In 2004, my own sister (definitely NOT a conservative) voted for Bush. Why? "Because Kerry is a flip-flopper." It boggles the mind. EVERY politician flip-flops like crazy, Bush and Kerry included, but the power of political advertising stuck that label firmly to Kerry's forehead alone. And gay marriage somehow got turned into a HUGE political issue in '04--How many people voted for Bush because they wanted to "defend marriage"? Did ANY of them take TWO GODDAMN SECONDS to check Google and find out that Kerry was against gay marriage as well? Did ANY of them ever stop and realize that the marriage issue was being decided on a state-by-state basis and that the constitutional amendment they were debating was completely unrelated to the presidential office?

And who the hell decided that the Republicans were "tough on terror" and the Democrats were weak... goddamnit, they supported Iraq, which was and still is a goddamn travesty, and they unanimously supported Afghanistan--what the hell else do they want? And Kerry actually fought in a war, damnit, while Bush putzed around in the National Guard, doing coke and getting arrested for DUI in his spare time, but the magic of those Swift Boat Liars (only one of those assholes actually served under Kerry, and their commercials are filled will outright lies and one obscenely misleading splice of two separate Kerry quotes) somehow managed to completely destroy what should have been a massive feather in Kerry's cap, especially considering the ongoing Iraq war.

So yeah, I think Total Ignorance can exist, but it's more of a quasi-willful ignorance, a willingness to unquestioningly believe in the most ridiculous horseshit. You don't have to be a genius, you don't have to devote your life to researching the issues, but I don't see how an ignorant vote can possibly be a good thing. On the basis of the above points, I'd say that ignorant voters played a major part in getting Bush reelected (mods, if you voted for Bush please note that I'm NOT calling you ignorant. I'm saying that many, if not most of the people who voted for Bush that I talked to

know others and yourself...

[justin88]

This year, don't even think about voting. By the time next year comes around, you should try to get a lot more info. I know you're not political, but in a way, your future depends on it. (unless you think this world has already gone to the dogs (understandable, really) an few suggestions: NEVER automatically vote for the guy who sounds good (you should know, about 90% of our Presidents who sounded good did for a reason: they were popular, which means they wanted to be and don't care how that might affect our country. don't believe anyone 100%, no matter what the argument. If any country believed in propaganda, it would be this one. all in all, make your own decision, and just yours. at least then you'll get what you asked for, not what someone else did. Good luck.

Re:Let me answer your question with this statement

[Monsuco]

Let me add that odds are you will agree with one candidate more than the other(s).

I would like to remind you that there is more to politics than canidits. There are referendums and issues. I would say with those, if you dont have a specific reason to vote for a reforendum, vote against it as things are probably fine as is.

Re:Let me answer your question with this statement

[saxoholic]

The original poster raises some good points. However, a close friend of mine recently wrote a rather extensive paper on this subject. He detirmined through research (I didn't write the paper, so I couldn't tell you what his sources were) that when people vote because they feel they have to, it skews the election because people in this demographic tend to vote for candidates based on reasons other than the issues. Personal appearance, or just the sound of a name play an important role here.

He also detirmined that overall, it's better if you don't feel strongly about the election that you don't vote. The analogy he used when explaining it to me was this:

Let's say that an office is throwing a party, and the host wants to know if he should serve peanuts or potato chips, so he sends around a survey giving the people attending the option to check either peanuts or potato chips. Let's also say that 50 people are going to the party, 40 don't really care whether peanuts or chips are served, 3 strongly favor chips, and 7 people are allergic to peanuts.

With the survey passed around all 50 people are forced to make a choice between peanuts and chips. While 40 of them don't actually have a preference, by forcing them to choose, it is possible that peanuts will win the vote, leaving the 7 people with a peanut allergy very unhappy.

However, if only those who cared strongly about the issue voted, chips would definitely win, the 40 people who didn't have a preference wouldn't be displeased, and only the 3 people would be unsatisfied. By limiting the voting population to those who strongly cared about the issue, more people overall were happy.

So, don't just vote because you feel you have to, vote because you care about the issues you're voting for. When you vote because you feel it is your duty, you skew the data, and it is possible that overall fewer people will be happy with the result.

Re:Has no effect

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you support killing your wife?

Yes, you did. You chose to have your wife shot. This was one of the options provided to you which would result in your wife being shot. This was explicitly defined and was the option you supported in exchange for your chance to "stick it to the man". Nice to know your wife means so little to you. The only ethically dubious thing I see is the way in which you chose to have your wife shot.

Likewise, if you choose to abstain you are giving your support to the majority or plurality no matter how you look at it. If their choice turns out bad that's your problem too since that was your choice as well, the same as if you made that choice using the other method provided to you (by voting). Had you chosen otherwise and the majority still won out, then you would be on the high ground.

So you just go right ahead and hold your head up and feel proud that you hold your rebelliousness and your opinion of yourself so high. To hell with everyone else: what will be will be. I myself choose to educate myself and make a choice that I think will be better for myself, my wife, my family, and my country. Even if that choice is the lesser of evils.

Re:Let me answer your question with this statement

[DaphneDiane]

I agree with the parent on vague candidates. When I do my research before voting (and it doesn't really take all that long, it's easy to find several different sites and points of view on most of the candidates and issues), any one that is vague or wishy-washy automatically loses my vote. I do not mind a candidate that is able to change their minds on issues given justifications, but I do not want one that will hide from the difficult questions.

Mostly I chose to vote for the least objectionable candidate. If I find myself tied I tend to pick either the incumbent (especially for judicial positions, or district attorney type positions) or pseudo-randomly with a slight bias away from what I would assume the normal bias would be. ((IE 2nd or 3rd choice on ballot, or opposite party of the current majority.)) I'm a strong believer that no party should ever have a strong majority, and that forcing compromises are the best way to deal with any flaws in our political system. In general I find politicians of any stripe with a "mandate" to be a bit scary.

My humble attempt at solving this problem.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a political junkie, but very few of my friends are, so I put together http://www.ezvoter.net/ over the weekend. It's a bare bones election guide aggregator, so anyone who wants to can skim a variety of carefully researched positions on issues and candidates in under 10 minutes. I started out wanting to do a lot more, and still have loftier goals for the site in '08, but for this cycle it seems to have gotten the job done.

You don't have to vote on every race

[Elladan]

Just pick the races you feel you are informed about. If you don't feel you're informed about any of them, study a few.

If you're not sure, leave that part blank. Surely you have some sort of opinion about something?

Easy - just vote for the guy with the best hair

[Joce640k]

Vote for the guy with the best hair - that's what most people end up doing.

PS: You honestly think that you're going to find out any useful information about a candidate in election week?

Re:Let me answer your question with this statement

[hustlebird]

Doesn't this idea lend itself to having the educated want to hold back the uneducated, in an attempt to keep power? The "educated democracy" sounds as scary as democracy is now.

Re:Let me answer your question with this statement

[honkycat]

Umm, no, we would still be a Republic, even without the Electoral College. In fact, in its current form, the Electoral College is a farce that only serves to distort the influence of voters in different states. The intent of the Electoral College is that you elect someone better informed whom you trust to cast a vote that serves your interests. Instead, the electors pretty much vote strictly along party lines. You can argue whether this is good or bad for the system, but it's not the electors who put the "representative" in "representative democracy," it's the politicians we elect.

Vote on what you DO know about

[Schlaegel]

Really; I find it almost impossible to find enough information to vote intelligently about everything presented to me on any ballot. I don't believe the correct option is to vote unintelligently, instead, the correct option is to vote on what you know about and leave the rest blank.

Those trying to get everyone to vote on everything, merely hope that the uninformed vote will go their way.

I agree with the ras_b's sentiment, I don't want to later discover that I voted opposite of my own beliefs (which I did once when I was younger). Also, if I don't have a strong opinion either way, then I should leave the issue to be decided by those who do have an opinion.

Re:Let me answer your question with this statement

[Eivind]

the rest that don't bother to show up are sending the message that they just don't give a flying fuck for the current crop of self-serving assholes that are trying to get themselves elected.

That's not how it works. By not voting, you are in effect supporting the guy you like the *least*.

Imagine there was only 3 candidates, A,B and C. Imagine you like C best, and A the least. Thus, where you to vote, you'd definitely not vote for A.

Now, if you sit at home instead is that the chance that A will actually win grows. Congratulations. You just supported your own worst enemy, thereafter you sit around at home complain about "the current crop" of politicians.

Here's a newsflash:

If you want to protest-vote: vote for anything *not* Republican/Democratic, that atleast sends the message that you want: namely that change is desired.

Offcourse that *also* supports the guy you like least, but that's US democracy for you.

Re: 3rd Party - Libertarian - send a message!

[TheoMurpse]

a Ron Paul Republican

Interestingly enough, Ron Paul is a card-carrying lifetime member of the Libertarian party. He was also the 1988 Libertarian candidate for president. /grew up in Ron Paul's district, knows someone who works for him, and got invited to his victory party tonight

Re:Let me answer your question with this statement

[phagstrom]

It puts more power in the hands of the stupid.

Coincidentally this is also what happens when you vote. :-)

Elitism?

[rov4416444]

Ignorant people need and deserve representation too. This very question betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of what Democracy is meant to accomplish.

Re:Let me answer your question with this statement

[Jim_Callahan]

Just poking my head in to point out that the only difference between the two is that one has your approval. Even doctrines based on empiricism (most popular one being science) are only as sound as their base assumptions (in the case of empricism, that would be the assumption of repeatability).

Not that I doubt the value of education, I quite like my own, but to fool oneself that it's somehow not a process by which other minds are forcefully shaped to be like your own is to be rather excessively blind to reality for my educated tastes. Insert emoticon of your choice here.

Uninformed vote = noise

[Anonymous Coward]

Uninformed vote = noise
Silence better than noise
------------------------
Silence better than uninformed vote

Mankiw is right. But your vote is irrelevant...

[Money for Nothin']

Mankiw is right that an ignorant vote is worse than no vote at all.

To illustrate by way of hypothetical, ask yourself which is worse:

* Telling your boss that Windows ME is a better OS than Win2k, or telling him you don't know? (if you're in IT, this ought to be obvious, but which is better: to admit you don't know, and go research the subject, or tell your boss to invest in ME, thereby giving him the go-ahead to make a costly, stupid decision?)

* Telling people that global warming does (or does not) exist, when in fact you don't really know? (is it better to falsely claim knowledge, or is it better to study the situation and get closer to the data first?)

* Telling the police that a serial killer ran north past your house during his evasion, when in fact you don't know whether he went north or west (assuming he's being chased from the south)? i.e., what's worse: telling the police that he could be one of 2 different ways, or telling him he went one way (north) rather than the other way he might actually have gone (west)?

* (During the Cold War) Informing the President that Soviet Russia has launched its nukes at America, when in fact you haven't confirmed this by way of whatever procedure the military uses to confirm such things? (Imagine what would happen if the President acted on this false advice: he might return fire, only to learn later that Russia may not have launched in the first place!)

As Thomas Jefferson once said (to paraphrase), he who admits he does not know the answer is closer to the truth than he who falsely claims he does know it. Ignorance is preferable to error.

With that said, your vote -- by itself, as an individual -- is utterly irrelevant. Yes, political people, I said "irrelevant".

It is irrelevant because elections involve a binary outcome: either you win, or you do not. There is no "almost won". "Do or do not; there is no 'try'", as Yoda says. What does the binary outcome mean for you, the voter?

It means that unless all the votes returned result in a dead-even vote, and your vote is the sole deciding vote, your vote is lost among the other votes. Just another iteration in the count of votes for one side or another.

For example: say you have a district in which there are exactly 549,999 votes for the Republican, 549,999 votes for the Democrat. [1] In this case, your vote for a Republican would mean there are 550,000 Republican votes, and 549,999 Democrat votes. The Republican thus wins, and therefore, the outcome is the same as if the Democrats had not voted at all - they might as well have stayed at home eating Cheetos and banging their S.O.'s. The reverse is true if you vote for the Democrat.

However, no race is ever this razor-thin. Even the year 2000 Presidential race in Florida had a margin of 537 votes -- razor-thin, by state-level standards, yet still more than enough to mean that your vote in that margin has less than a 0.2% impact on the outcome (this assumes your vote is one of the votes in the 537 in the margin. But in this particular case, Floridians didn't decide the vote: the U.S. Supreme Court did).

Even in that race, if you voted Republican, your vote would've been 1 out of 537 in the margin. Had you not voted, there would have been 536 in the margin instead. That's still clearly more than enough to sway things to the GOP side. The Republicans win - with or without your vote.

So, why vote if your vote does not matter? *Individually*, it doesn't matter. It's irrational as an individual to vote. As an individual policy, voting is irrational and irrelevant *IF* your goal is to change the outcome of the election. [2]

However, as a *group* policy, it clearly makes a difference. The power of our electoral system lies not with your vote; it lies with your ability to persuade other people to vote the way you want them to... True political power is gained by convincing tho

Re:Let me answer your question with this statement

[paxmark1]

If you at all keep up with anything local or county wide, you are going to know at least two people that you know you want to vote against.

Go out, and vote for the person(s) running against those you know to be totally inept, evil, inane, crazy and leave all the rest blank.

The person running against them can't be any worse.

It was a joy voting for my ex neighbor in the primary in Iowa for governor last June, he lived in the hood with us and played organ at the Methodist church when I went there in the 1990's. Get out and meet more people concerned with the future of this planet, and maybe you might be voting for them in a few years time.

And remember - the most important elections are for school boards. That is one of the most important votes, and the place where one vote might really make a difference.

peace, mark

Re:Let me answer your question with this statement

[wathiant]

I just have to say that I totally agree :)

Is An Uninformed Vote Better Than No Vote?

[4D6963]

No, but you can consider that an uninformed answer.

Re:Let me answer your question with this statement

[wathiant]

Anyway, IMHO if you don't vote you really don't have any leg to stand on to complain about any governmental laws. If Congress decides to attack Iraq or invade North Korea, and you get drafted, DON'T COMPLAIN if you didn't vote. If Congress decides to massively raise your taxes, DON'T COMPLAIN if you didn't vote. If Congress passes laws allowing eavesdropping on all your emails and web browses, DON'T COMPLAIN if you didn't vote. Etc, etc.

As if the 2 parties you can choose between in the USA have different policies. If both parties have the same policies, you can complain no matter if you voted. Also, you ALWAYS have the right to complain when your government does things to you that you don't agree with. The people that were voted for do NOT hold absolute power over your life.

Re:Let me answer your question with this statement

[NeutronCowboy]

This also assumes that the masses want to be educated. Judging from my experience here, the majority of people are happy wallowing in blissful ignorance.

Mankiw is an idiot

[oohshiny]

Mankiw was the guy who said that for the justice department to hold up the release of Windows 98 (or Windows ME or something) was like "throwing sands into the gears of progress". His argument was that because Windows is so economically successful, it is self-evident that it is technically superior and highly advanced, and that it was really not necessary for him to know anything about technology to make that determination. Obviously, his position and area of expertise (economics) had gone to his head.

Whether you should vote or not, and what the consequences of that are, is actually something people have studied. But, based on his publications, I think it's pretty evident that this is also not Mankiw's area of expertise.

The guy likes to talk a lot and use his academic credentials to lend credence to statements about subjects he should probably be considered little more than a smart layman in (kind of like your average Slashdot participant). Don't take his word for more than it's worth.

Re:Let me answer your question with this statement

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyway, IMHO if you don't vote you really don't have any leg to stand on to complain about any governmental laws. If Congress decides to attack Iraq or invade North Korea, and you get drafted, DON'T COMPLAIN if you didn't vote. If Congress decides to massively raise your taxes, DON'T COMPLAIN if you didn't vote. If Congress passes laws allowing eavesdropping on all your emails and web browses, DON'T COMPLAIN if you didn't vote. Etc, etc.

Alas, the opposite is true too : If you did vote, and that party you voted for does something you do not like, do you do not (according to certain people) have the right to complain, 'cause you voted for them ....

Actually, not voting is sometimes the best thing you can do : if one groups offer you a choice of getting mutilated by a hammer and another group offers to do it by axe you would want to have the option not to accept either group's offer.

And it it looks like many voters are doing just that : they probably don't like to be sweet-talked to just before the election, and than having to eat (force-fed) anything that happens after it.

To be short about it : There is allways a "reason" to tell someone to "shut up", be cause (s)he
1) did not vote
2) voted for the very party that made the "wrong" choice
3) should have voted on a stronger party to begin with, so it could have stopped all "that".
4) ... name any other "reason".

Delegable proxy

[emmanuel.charpentier]

There is a concept which is taking importance: the possibility to lend your voice to another voter.

This is in fact an attempt at representative democracy, but one which is low level and very open.

Personally I plan to add it to my direct democracy project: http://leparlement.org/

But the way issues are organised is complexifying the whole matter, you have a tree of issues and a tree of delegations, both multiply complexity!

Internet can bring true democracy, increasing the size of the athenian forum, enough to hold all of humanity!

http://leparlement.org/

What about the Electoral College

[Anonymous Coward]

Traditionally, I abstain from voting as a boycott against the Electoral College. As we all recall, it is the Electoral College's votes in each state that determine who the state is for, not that actual votes of the residents of that state. Now, it is true that some states have laws requiring the Electoral College to vote in accordance with the people's selection, but this is not anywhere close to being ubiquitous. Essentially, this means the Electoral College can vote in whatever manner they desire regardless of the votes of the people. I also understand that tradition dictates they don't do this, but in a battle between tradition and power, I'm guessing power will win.

Now, I haven't seen any hard numbers that demonstrate or refute any wrongdoing, but I would be curious. And moreover, being in a democracy where we do now have the ability to inform the public and manage all their votes (the initial reasons for the Electoral College), the Electoral College system is an unnecessary antiquation.

I will exercise my vote when my vote individually has value. This is simply not the case in the current state of things.

And for anyone who says I haven't researched this enough, I agree. I am currently a Peace Corp volunteer serving in a country where Internet access is a rare thing (and I'm on Slashdot... learning a little about the election).

Maybe

[Anonymous Coward]

This argument (that an uninformed vote is worse than no vote at all) might work for more local issues (let's face it, the first and last time I'll probably ever see the name of my County Treasurer is on my ballot) but it just doesn't hold water for House, Senate, and Presidential races. As Dylan put it, you don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.

However, local issues are the things that will most directly affect your life, so to not vote on them is not be informed about them and vote on them is not only irresponsible, it's also downright stupid for you, against your own self interest.

My General Voting procedure

[mauthbaux]

1: Always vote. If nothing else, it gives you the right to complain.
2: Vote against the incumbent. Leaving someone in place for too long causes things to stagnate. Get someone new in there before the old one starts to fester and cause a stink.
3: If available, vote Third-party. Democrats and Republicans enjoy spreading the myth that you can only be a democrat or a republican; there being no other options. Prove them wrong.

As a side note, Cecil Adams wrote a column once on the term "idiot"; specifically that it originally meant a person who had the right to vote, but didn't.

Re:Let me answer your question with this statement

[koreth]

Actually, I'm cool with everyone being brainwashed into empiricism.

Do NOT leave the boxes/bubbles blank

[Antony-Kyre]

If you do not vote for a race or for a measure, do the following.

For a measure, write underneath "Neither one".

For a candidate, fill in the write-in bubble "No vote" or something like that.

Do you really trust poll workers not to try filling in that when no one is looking? Well, I have no idea if that could happen, but better safe than sorry.

3rd parties are a red herring

[Scudsucker]

You would have just as much corruption with a dozen parties as we do with two, and gridlock would be a lot worse. 3rd parties are a red herring, much like term limits.

Re:Let me answer your question with this statement

[bampot]

As my mother always said, "if you don't vote, you have no right no complain"

Only once did I not excercise my right to vote at a general election, and every time Tony B. Liar did something objectionable I had to bite my tongue. Never again. In other words, get off your lazy ass and use the power that previous generations paid such a price to protect.

Vote blank

[Per Abrahamsen]

If you are not against democracy as such, but don't feel you can vote for any of the presented candidates (whether it is because you know to little or too much about them), vote blank.

Personally, I'd vote for a third-party candidate (any third party candidate) just to protest the two-party system, if it had been my country.

This should be a Slashdot Poll

[giafly]

Is an uninformed vote better than no vote?

• Yes
• No
• I never vote
• Rude comment about Faux news
• Rude comment about Diebold
• If it's for Cowboy Neal

Will have to agree to disagree

[benhocking]

While I'm sure many on slashdot feel that way, I'm fairly certain that the majority of Americans don't feel that way - regardless of the reality - and my point was about how people feel.

As for whether steel is a metal, well, I'll just say "no comment". :)

Gotta love the big O

[benhocking]

No disagreements here. I just wanted to point out that an even split is NOT what's expected from a random vote.

Heinlein's Solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Robert Heinlein offered a solution to exactly this dilemma in "The Notebooks of Lazarus Long":

"If you are part of a society that votes, then do so. There may be no candidates and no measures you want to vote for...but there are certain to be ones you want to vote against. In case of doubt, vote against. By this rule you will rarely go wrong. If this is too blind for your taste, consult some well-meaning fool (there is always one around) and ask his advice. Then vote the other way. This enables you to be a good citizen (if such is your wish) without spending the enormous amount of time on it that truly intelligent exercise of franchise requires."

Re:Let me answer your question with this statement

[alexhard]

You see this is a very interesting problem because history teaches us that democratic governments don't really want to educate their people..

Which, of course, also reveals the second biggest problem with representational democracies (the first one is the public is stupid): elected officials, by nature, do not act in the interests of the people..

Me? I like the ideas Plato put forward in The Republic..a meritocratic oligarchy

Re:Let me answer your question with this statement

[XxtraLarGe]

That's not how it works. By not voting, you are in effect supporting the guy you like the *least*.

I dont' know if that's necessarily the case. There are many reasons not to vote for a particular race. What if you have equal disdain for both candidates (Stalin or Mao, You Decided!)? What if a race is uncontested?

Here's the way I usually vote

1. For Libertarians in races where a Libertarians candidate is available.
2. For other third party candidates if no Libertarian candidate is running. Yes, I'll vote Green or other Socialist parties, because at least they are hones about themselves.
3. In a two-way race with only a D & R, I will vote against the incumbent
4. If there's no incumbent, or I'm not familiar with either candidate, I'll vote none of the above (I leave it blank)

I figure in this way I have registered my disenfranchisement with the current system.

LWV does good work

[Krishnoid]

the league of women voters does a good job of consolidating all the information i needed.

If I'm not going to do the research myself, I personally trust them to do the research for me. When it comes to their position statements on the individual ballot measures, I at least trust their analysis of the measures, even when it leads me to vote in the other direction.

This brings up another point; if you don't feel you know enough about the candidates, don't vote in the elections. Quickly read up on the ballot measures, and just vote on those. Stem cell research funding? Medicine good (grunt). Fingerlician or Tastycrat? Tougher choice, pass.

Athenian Democracy

[Otto-Marrakech]

"We do not say that a man who takes no interest in politics minds his own business. We say he has no business here at all." -Pericles

For those who don't know, Pericles was an Athenian statesman, more responsible for the acceptance of democracy than anyone else in antiquity. Though Athens was a direct democracy comprising some 300,000 members of the ecclesia (sovereign political body comprising all eligible male citizens), you still have a fundamental civic responsibility to be educated in political affairs, to analyze issues and make a decision based on reasoned observation, but why bother?

"Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn't mean politics won't take an interest in you." -Also Pericles

Re:Athenian Democracy

[Creepy Crawler]

And Democracy is worse than Communism.

With democracy, there is NO rule of law, NO property rights, NO civil rights, NO anything.

Why is that? Just get 50%+1 voting on your side, and you can do damn well as you please. Another name is called Mob Rule.

Dont like dem' here Jews? Take a vote and fry em. Dat A-RAB lookin at you funny? Get a vote and hang em.

Just you better not piss anybody off, lest they vote for your head.

Re:Let me answer your question with this statement

[Anonymous Coward]

So if you're too lazy to vote, or to research at least some of the candidates positions, you're really shitting all over the efforts and lives lost of people that DID fight for the right to make sure that you have the right to vote.

IMHO, Uninformed voting is much more shitting all over the efforts... You may have a right to vote, but that right is useless when 60% of the votes are cast by uninformed voters that might as well be throwing dice (and who says they don't).

I agree that informed voters are preferable, but when not informed, staying home is a FAR better solution than voting anyway. Every informed person in the country may vote for candidate A, but when the "dice" likes candidate B's hairstyle better, candidate B is still going to win, making the "right to vote" useless.

So, if you are informed, vote. If you are not informed, go to the library and GET INFORMED. If that's too much to ask, stay home. DON'T VOTE.

Re:Let me answer your question with this statement

[Anonymous Coward]

Not only have wars been fought for the right to vote.

Despite the US constitution prohibiting a standing army for any duration longer than two years, and despite certain principles of non-aggression, the USA have a long history of starting another aggressive war every few years, for more than a century now.

So by voting for a candidate that supports this you end up indirectly killing more people than ever died for the right to vote.

Yes, stupidity does matter. It's MUCH better to not vote, than to vote for the wrong party, just because you don't care shit. You're *giving* people the right (kind of) to do commit kinds of crimes, wage wars, prohibit gays the right to marry, storm houses of casual marijuana smokers (or their neighbors) with SWAT teams, tax families to the point of bankruptcy etc.

Re:Let me answer your question with this statement

[Anonymous Coward]

But see, the whole POINT of the electoral college is to distort the influence of voters in different states. Because the United States of America is not a republic at all, but a FEDERAL republic. Our country is divided up into states, each with a high degree of (but far from total) independence. The reason we have the electoral college is to prevent the residents of a few small, heavily populated (that is, urban) states from outweighing the voters of a large number of less populated states.

This isn't a mistake or a side-effect. It's the whole idea.

The key word in "federal republic" is "federal."

The intent of the Electoral College is that you elect someone better informed whom you trust to cast a vote that serves your interests.

No, that's the purpose of the Congress, where we elect representatives to make direct policy decisions on our behalf. The electoral college has nothing to do with representation.

So this guy wants...

[ignavus]

So this guy wants to be informed about being uninformed?

Having posed the question, you should vote...

[Richard Kirk]

I understand the dilemma. You are more likely to get struck by lightning on the way to the polls then you are to affect a national election. You don't like picking any card from such a heavily prepared deck. Nevertheless, by posing the question to yourself and others you have probably revealed yourself as someone who worries about the consequences of the collective effects of their actions. This is just the sort of voter the polls need.

But, you are right, it does stink. I wish all elections gave you the opportunity of voting for or against each candidate. Often there are several people who I could vote for in my local elections, but one or two that I definately don't want on any account.

is equal

[Anonymous Coward]

I d say they are equal. In both cases you fail your moral duty. Asking yourself from that point on what to decide makes little sense. You should acknolege your failure and take measure so that it will not happen again.
  The moral duty is that of being a citizen, not just slipping a paper in a box. Meaning: keeping yourself informed and thinking about the issues is part of that duty. If you are clever, it is even more so.

Re:Let me answer your question with this statement

[tehcyder]

It puts more power in the hands of the stupid.

That in a nutshell is why democracy is ineffective, dangerous, and should be abolished.

I'm just guessing, but would you be willing to volunteer to pick up the pieces after its abolition? Maybe organise things a bit, whip us some smart black police uniforms and armbands,get the trains running on time, that sort of thing?

Re:Question is a Logical Falacy!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, because if we had sat idly by and allowed Hitler to conquer Europe and eventually the U.S., we'd all still have the right to vote in democratic elections!

I guess some people just have no grasp of history.

Re:Let me answer your question with this statement

[taxciter]

For the minimally informed I recommend the guns and porn IF: If you like guns vote Republican. If you like porn vote Democrat. If you like guns and porn vote Libertarian.

Re: 3rd Party - Libertarian - send a message!

[tehcyder]

If you don't know, vote Libertarian.

Great slogan, better than my "if you're a drooling Ayn Rand fan who masturbates to donkey porn while smoking crack and goosestepping round your mother's basement, vote Libertarian" one.

Do you really think you're neutral?

[qrwe]

To say "I will not vote in this election, beacuse I don't care" is like saying "...because I like it the way it is". That is a grave mistake. Everyone has an opinion and if a government has gone too far away from his or her values and beliefs, it's time for a switch. And in a democracy, that switch can only be done in one single way - by voting! On the other hand, if you do like it the way it is, there's only one way to keep it that way - by voting! Summary: You SHOULD vote, my friend.

The answer is obvious

[testadicazzo]

It's your duty as a member of a democracy to inform yourself. Do some reading. We're talking about spending 5-20 hours or so to determine your country's (and since the US had such a large global footprint, to some extent the world's) outcome.

You're never going to find a candidate that you agree with completely, so try to decide what issues are most important to you, and evaluate the candidate's based on those criteria.

Since we are unfortunate enough to live in a country where we generally have only two choices for any particular post, an efficient algorithm presents itself: First go www.opensecrets.org, and look up the incumbents voting record. For interest you might want to look at his campain funding record as well. Does he/she seem to vote in the interest of his/her constituents? or does he/she vote against the constituents in favor of his/her fundres? How does his/her voting record jibe with what you would have voted? This process should kill 2 or 3 hours.

Then look at the consitutents web page and see what they are promising. Does it 1) match what you are looking for, focusing on your highest priorities? and 2) does it match with how that candidate is actually voting?

Once you know this, you just have to look at the opponent's web page and see what they are promising, and try to make an estimate of how much they mean what they say. (good luck with that one). You are always taking a chance when voting for a non-incumbant, but usually the incumbants are such bastards it's worth taking the chance. That's what makes opensecrets so useful.

If you do this much, you will be better informed than the average voter, and will only have spent one full workday per voting cycle (2 years!) to fulfill your duties as a citizen. If you think that's too much to ask, well, that makes me sad and angry, and it's my personal opinion that people who are unwilling to accept such a small amount of responsibility are the most harmful eroders of democracy.

Now the above post is pretty politically neutral, and just my opinion on how to be a good citizen. I'm going to present a more inflamatory algorithm that I nonethless believe in quite strongly, but it's a little off topic to the question. First, never vote Republican. The current Republican administration embraces corruption, deceit and unacountability. If you can avoid voting democrat, then do so. The 2 party system is incredibly harmful and really reduces the quality and breadth of political choice and debate in the United States. Eliminating parties would be nice but a couple more additional parties would be an improvement, and a more realistic scenario. Even if your candidate doesn't win, you're improving the odds for third party candidates in the next election, and improving the odds that a third party candidate will be able to participate in debates. If you don't have a sane third party choice, then you're probably stuck with the Dems for now. Of course exceptions to these rules exist, but in lieu of real research the above algorithm will probably serve you well.

Re:Wow... (Repubs and Dems Suck)

[moeinvt]

"I chose not to vote because there is no longer anyone worth voting for."

I completely understand the frustration, but I reject that blanket statement, unless you append "that has a reasonable chance of winning." Did you see the Slashdot stories preceding the last presidential election where the readers asked questions of the Libertarian and Green candidates? I thought that both of them were worth voting for. With a little research, I think you will find that there are lots of other candidates worthy of your vote.

I agree that the two major parties suck, but please vote, even if it is just to express your frustration with the candidates of the major parties.

If you think this is futile, I would urge you to become active in the efforts for fundamental reform of the voting system. "Instant Runoff" or "Approval" voting would break us out of this disastrous two party system in a very short time. There are organizations (I would say non-partisan, but the two major parties obviously hate the idea) trying to promote each.

CopOut

[MrCopilot]

No Vote the candidates, read initiatives on the ballot and vote on just those.

Did the election sneak up on you? Get informed. Click a politcal link instead of Slashdot submit story.

Just another excuse to not participate and let others decide YOUR/OUR future. Very Lame.

That makes no sense

[Anonymous Coward]

The people smart enough to consider this question are probably more intelligent than 85% of those who actually will vote. Therefore, not voting because you don't think you are informed enough results in fewer votes by smart people. It puts more power in the hands of the stupid.

So its better for a highly educated rocket scientist with no knowledge of any of the issues or candidates to go to the polls and basically vote at random (or along party lines) than it is for an uneducated janitor to do the same thing? Does the rocket scientist's "superior" intellect somehow make him more qualified to make random selections? Is power actually in anyone's hands when people are voting at random? If you are asked to choose the better candidate from a list of completely unfamiliar names, intelligence will not help you if you don't know anything about the candidates. Intelligent != informed.

Unless you follow politics or at least take a little time to do some research on the candidates and issues, all you hear during campaigns is an endless litany of name calling and mud-slinging. If you don't know what the issues are and what the candidates stand for, it's just a crap-shoot. You might vote for someone you would actually want to vote for, but you might vote for someone who stands for something you violently oppose.

You would feel pretty stupid if you were anti-war and against the death penalty and you inadvertently voted for a bunch of people who wanted to establish new, "tougher" crime laws that allow the death penalty to be used more frequently and wanted to reestablish conscription for the war in Iraq. Or if you are a card carrying NRA member and you inadvertantly voted for someone who wants to abolish guns in this country. This isn't a high school election or a popularity contest, the results have potentially serious consequences. Go to the polls and vote on the issues/candidates you are informed about and don't vote on the rest.

Re:Wrong Question. Right Answer? GET INFORMED!

[GozzoMan]

I regret deeply not having points to mod the parent up!

This is totally lazy nonsense, get informed!

If you hate the system, vote for the 2nd place.

[Colin Smith]

You are proceeding from an invalid position, and that is, the presumption that politicians are a force for good, or at least, that one might be a force for less evil.

Actually I'm not. I'm proceeding on a statistical basis. By not voting you are implicitly aiding the incumbent, republican, democrat or whatever to continue without requiring change. While I agree with many of your points, doing nothing just makes things worse, if you really believe them you should instead always vote for instability, with the first past the post system that means voting for the second placed party, and encouraging other people to do the same. If you really want to change the system there are a number of tactics which can be used to maximise your influence. If you can't be arsed... well then shut the fuck up, I don't want to hear your whining.

Re:If you hate the system, vote for the 2nd place.

[fyngyrz]

...well then shut the fuck up, I don't want to hear your whining.

<sarcasm>I'm sorry, I must have missed that modification to the first amendment where what you want gets you the privilege to muzzle others. Good thing for everyone else that you keep up with those sub-rosa changes to the constitution no one else knows about, eh?</sarcasm>

"Statistical basis", my aching ear. You're just another sycophant with a mouthful of high-syllable excuses for pretending voting has an effect. There is no "instability", the parties are the same. Didn't you hear the democrats last night, babbling about 9/11 and "security"? Didn't you hear them talking about a "new direction" in Iraq? Not restoration of rights, not repeal of any of these bullshit laws, nothing about Bush's signing statements, nothing about torture, nothing about the (barely) 3-day congressional workweek and the blatant corporate funds driven legislation mechanism, nothing about all the illegal wiretapping, nothing about funneling billions of dollars to Haliburton et al without so much as a single competitive bid, not a word about habeas corpus, nothing about pulling out troops — it's business as usual in Washington, and you can count on it. I don't need to explain it; I'll just watch it happen, like it always does.

Vote for whoever you want. It's an exercise that does nothing but make you think you did something, while diluting the effect to as near zero as they can possibly keep it. And that's pretty near zero. That's the point of the party system that exists today; if the voters knock one politician down, another one with the same essential set of goals and pushed buttons pops up to replace them, and the system trundles on with no effect on direction, goals, or procedure. You're supposed to be doing this. It keeps the citizens from picking up weapons, but it does not engender the changes they want.

Re:If you hate the system, vote for the 2nd place.

[Atheose]

I take it you haven't heard Nancy Pelosi talk about the Patriot act, or any of the other things you don't think will change? http://www.house.gov/pelosi/press/releases/Dec05/p atriot.html Go ahead and tell everyone that still nothing is going to change, we all know you're just dying to say that some more.

Maybe you should, you know, take a break from spouting off random anarchist rabble. Wipe the spittle from your chin, maybe take a shower, and get back to us when you've grown up a bit.

Re:If you hate the system, vote for the 2nd place.

[fyngyrz]

Look — you get back to me when she and her cronies do something. Sure politicians talk. Talking isn't action. I will truly be impressed when — if — some of this crap is actually rolled back. Until then, my opinion will remain as is. As for your middle-school characterizations, good luck with that. It really helps make your point. Not.

Re:Let me answer your question with this statement

[wass]

Bzzt, sorry, by not voting you're JUST AS GUILTY of any wars the elected government initiates as if you did vote because YOU DID NOT DO YOUR CIVIC DUTY by voting. Take some responsibility for your life, man.

Vote: Demographics

[neelm]

I'm not sure if this will get seen, too many posts already, but going to vote and even leaving the choices blank (you can do that) is important. Notice how they talk about "married men voted this way" and "inner city blacks voted that way" etc? Ever wonder how come your medical costs are never looked at yet there is always debate for Medicare? It's simple, the politician's look at who votes, and do things for them (and that's the way it's supposed to work). By not voting, not only are you not having a say, but you are telling the government you don't matter enough to consider.

And since I'm a 30 year old white male, and your a slashdot reader, and that means there is a pretty good chance we're in the same demographic - your not voting is pissing me off. Go vote; don't make me sign you up to more spam lists.

Power in the hands of the stupid

[m3j]

The people smart enough to consider this question are probably more intelligent than 85% of those who actually will vote. Therefore, not voting because you don't think you are informed enough results in fewer votes by smart people. It puts more power in the hands of the stupid.

Unfortunately, the way most people vote puts more power in the hands of the stupid, too.

Possible Strategy

[jthayden]

I think in order to be totally uninformed about any of the issues in recent elections you'd have to be living under a rock. But if we accept the premise that you know nothing about the issues or candidates, you could use one of the following strategies.

One: Vote against the incumbent. Incumbents are nearly impossible to remove from office. Even in the recent election where there was a good amount of turnover, incumbents still won the vast majority of races. Vote against them. If they are good, they'll still win. If they were bad, they will likely win anyway but you may help to remove them. This would involve voting for the Republican or Democrat that is running against the incumbent since you want the person with the next best chance of winning to get your vote. This also works well for those districts that have Yes/No ballots on judges keeping their jobs.

Two: Vote third party. It's unlikely they will win so you don't have to worry too much about electing someone with a different world view than you. But your vote may help to contribute to the destruction of the two party system and it will show you're fed up with the major candidates.

Three: Vote Affirmative Action. A friend of mine votes like this in all those little races that he knows nothing about. Basicly he votes against anyone who sounds like a white male. I'm not saying this is a great idea, just a way to go about balancing out the people who won't vote for anyone who isn't a white male if you're interested in that sort of thing.

Four: Vote against Diebold. Go to the polls and refuse to use the e-voting machines if the don't have a paper trail. Make a stink about it and draw attention to the issue. Don't do anything illegal, or at least a no felonies, but maybe you'll get media coverage if you get arrested or thrown out.

Being informed more is important...

[WooDaddy]

I agree with you, if I don't have the facts on an issue, I wouldn't cast a vote. My failing to vote is not the issue, my failing to be informed is. On the other hand, if I am unconcerned with politics I also feel I give up my right to bitch if things aren't going the way I want them to in government. It's like buying a product. Most prudent people would do a little research before shilling out cold hard cash on a durable good. You wouldn't buy a car just because someone said to, unless you had absolute trust that said person was an authority on good cars. Even then it would be wise to do your homework... Unfortunately politicians are usually much less reliable than a budget rental! Even to the well informed voter, they are only taking the word of someone else and trusting it as truth, and in politics everyone knows how rare and valuable a commodity truth is.

Re:Let me answer your question with this statement

[surprise_audit]

I'm a non-citizen, so I can't vote anyway. I still pay taxes, put my kids through school, etc, but I'm not allowed to express my opinion by voting. Don't get me started on Taxation Without Representation...

Actually, I think this year I finally had my Green Card long enough to be able to file for citizenship, but it'll have to wait until next year's tax refund. Anyway, I want to see how the current crop of idiots works out before shelling out around $1500 for the filing fee, photos, fingerprints (4th set of prints...), etc.

If/when I *can* vote, I probably would vote for someone other than Republican or Democrat.

None of the above

[Jeff Molby]

It's only when there are two equal evils with no choice of a third that I don't vote

In that situation, I wrote-in NOTA.

I Smile at Your Wis-Doom

[LifesABeach]

"My reasoning is that since I am totally uninformed, I shouldn't vote."

I see that you have at least two grave problems. But consider the painfully obvious; It is a bad thing when Predators smile at your willingness to cooperate.

No but . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

You have the responsibility as a citizen to stay informed as a citizen.
And you should make decision that your comfortable to you not your parents.
Even if you can't see it, decisions made by our represenatives WILL affect your life.
And we are the government not the officials.

No wonder democracy is in such bad state today.

[jotaeleemeese]

First of all, shame on you.

Contless thousends, maybe even millions of people, have died and struggled in order for you to be free.

Even free to be an arshole.

The minimum standard of decency of any citizen in a free country is to get their lazy asses to a voting poll and vote.

If you don't care about politics or feel you are not represented you can invalidate your vote. That sends pretty much the same message, but at least says you have a minimum of respect for the people that have given so much in order for you to enjoy the freedoms (that have been diminishing in the US and many other countries recently) that you so non chalantly decide to take for granted.

Shame on you and all your ilk.

How informed do you really have to be.

[gurps_npc]

There are non-parisan web sites that describe candidates stands on issues. Read them.

It should take you less time to become informed than you to worry about not being informed.

You don't have to vote for all the issues/people. You can leave some 'unvoted'.

Political Darwinism

[benhocking]

I like that way of thinking. It's somewhat less depressing.

Re:Let me answer your question with this statement

[Neoprofin]

It's always been a game of image, tough on crime, for families, etc. all you can hope for is that you vote for the special intrests on either side who will protect what's important to you, whether it be your guns, abortions, tax money, or God knows what else. The days of the government accountable directly to the people are long gone, thought I guess the government of union/corperate/religious/environmentalist proxy representitives could be worse.

Re:Let me answer your question with this statement

[bomb_number_20]

I'm not sure this strategy is much better.

You can't make a meaningful decision unless you know the opinion of the other side. Saying that Blagojevich does cut funding for education doesn't mean that Topinka does not cut funding for education. Further, you know nothing about how they plan to implement the funding. It could make things worse. IIRC, at one point both candidates said they wanted to increase funding for education. The difference was in how they wanted to do it: Blagojevich wanted to do something with the lottery, Topinka wanted to build casinos in Chicago. Without knowing that part of things, you have essentially said you want to build a casino and bring gambling to downtown Chicago. You've unwittingly supported something you may not have supported had you known more.

Re:Let me answer your question with this statement

[JesseMcDonald]

Democracy is the worst form of government--except all the others that have been tried.

Then perhaps the answer is to stop trying.

Re:Let me answer your question with this statement

[honkycat]

Thanks for the civics lesson.

Actually, the Electoral College doesn't amplify the political power of small states. There's no need for an elector to do that -- just apportion votes according to the number of seats in the House and give them all to the popular winner in that state. That's essentially equivalent to what we do now (except for Maine and Nebraska) and doesn't involve elected officials casting votes on behalf of the people.

Furthermore, nothing about federalism is in any way tied to electors. So I don't get your point there either. The EC is, at this point, a historical artifact.

If you're electing someone to elect someone for you, then you're electing a representative. Do you really dispute that? No, it's not the reason we call the system a representative democracy, but I already said that - did you even finish reading my post?

Re:Let me answer your question with this statement

[bomb_number_20]

That's a good point- I agree with you.

It can still be a problem, though. As one of the other posters pointed out, sometimes you don't even have a party to work with.

Re:Let me answer your question with this statement

[Mad Dog Manley]

Abstaining from voting is your right. And in a nation where mid-term elections frequently see less than 50% turnout, the votes of those who choose to abstain speak more loudly than those who choose to participate.

Interesting point. But unfortunately for you, while the abstainers make a strong statement by having the majority of votes, they only serve to increase the power and influence of the minority who choose to exercise their right. In effect, you are handing control of the government over to them, and are being ruled by a minority. Well done.

Just go vote!

[Ken Erfourth]

Even if you're a total moron, go and vote. It helps keep the process honest.

If turnout is really low, it becomes possible to swing an election by appealing to a small special interest segment of the public. Reich-wing christianists, total gun-ban loons, total machinegun-in-every-house gun nutz, anti-hunting zealots, and total abortion banners can envision victory based on 100% turnout of their looney bases.

High turnout makes that kind of shenanegans unthinkable (though not impossible, as some statistics nerd will doubtless point out). In high turnout elections, parties will target broad sensible messages in order to capture a plurality of regular folks' votes.

So vote. Even if you're clueless. And, if you don't mind too much, spend ten minutes reading endorsements from a mainstream newspaper (you can get em' online, so as a /.er, you shouldn't find this too difficult), and avoid voting for anyone who is too d*mn crazy (I'm thinking Katherine Harris crazy here).

You, and people like you, will be doing your country a huge favor.

Your Problem

[Nom du Keyboard]

Your problem is that you're so afraid of voting wrong, that you don't vote at all. And you're unwilling to listen to others (family) who may be better informed than you, or become better informed yourself, probably because that requires actual work on your part.

You're a disaster of a human being, the source of all your current problems, likely have a truly messed up life otherwise, and will never see this post because it is so very far down in this topic that already has more comments than almost any other topic I've seen recently on Slashdot that everyone has stopped reading long before reaching this point.

Re:Let me answer your question with this statement

[Azar]

I think you entirely missed the point of the GPs post.

You said:
I'm not sure this strategy is much better.

You can't make a meaningful decision unless you know the opinion of the other side. Saying that Blagojevich does cut funding for education doesn't mean that Topinka does not cut funding for education.

That is precisely what the GP was saying when he said The answer is not to just go out and vote for the sake of voting, but to spend some time learning about your candidates for the sake of your county, state, and/or country.

He was saying "Get informed about both sides before voting", which I'd have to agree is about the most intelligent advice you can give when it comes to elections. If you don't care enough to spend the time to know the candidates and what they stand for, don't sit and whine about the next Bush or Kerry or whomever you find to be against your ideals.

Re:Let me answer your question with this statement

[budgenator]

I think the election has pretty much demonstrated that people are ready for a change, and the real change they want is to quit feeling like a tug-toy between two pitbulls.

Voter ignorance.

[torokun]

This reminds me of a a good paper by Ilya Somin of George Mason Law School re voter ignorance.

Here are a couple:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id =457760

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id =916963

Re:Let me answer your question with this statement

[Anonymous Coward]

people have been killed ... to ensure that everybody would have the right to vote.

I hope you realize that you're defending the actions of murderers, and following it up by saying that I shouldn't complain if I don't do what the murderers tell me to do.

I mean, seriously, fuck you to hell. If you voted, then this blood is on your hands now, too, because you support murderers.

Re:Let me answer your question with this statement

[JesseMcDonald]

I'm just guessing, but would you be willing to volunteer to pick up the pieces after its abolition? Maybe organise things a bit, whip us some smart black police uniforms and armbands,get the trains running on time, that sort of thing?

No, the failure of past revolutions was precisely in that they did what you are proposing -- they tried to replace the system they just overthrew with "something better." They tear down the corrupted government of the day but fail to destroy the legitimization of aggression on which both the corruption and the idea of government itself are based. As a result their "something better" ends up becoming just as bad as what it replaced, or possibly even worse. The only way to break the cycle is to reject the foundation, the legitimization of aggression, on which the existance of any sort of government depends. That cannot be accomplished though politics or war; both presume the existance of legitimate aggression, which contradicts and undermines the goal. It can only be accomplished if individuals choose to recognize government aggression as illegitimate and defend themselves against it, whenever and wherever it may occur; in other words, by treating the government like the criminal organization that it is.

Stay home

[Wolfger]

If you're too lazy to vote intelligently, do everybody a favor and don't vote at all.
Furthermore, I think that the idiot box (area of ballot that allows a voter to vote a "straight ticket" for a single party) should be done away with, and candidate's party affiliations should not be present on the ballot. We should be making it harder for lazy people to vote, not easier. If you truly want to select names at random, I can't stop you, but there's no good reason to make voting a "no-brainer".... You should be using your brain when you vote!

I wrote an op-ed piece about this

[SonicSpike]

I wrote an op-ed piece about this the other day:

DON'T VOTE!!!

Have any of you seen the AARP commercial on TV that says 'Don't Vote?!" I have caught it a couple of times. If you haven't seen it, you can see it here: http://www.dontvote.com/spots.html

I tend to agree with this idea: DON'T VOTE! If you do not understand a few basic concepts, then please DO NOT VOTE.

First off, one must educate themselves BEYOND the personality marketing and the basic sound bites. One must study the policy positions of the candidates prior to voting. Have you done this yet? It's real easy to study, simply visit the websites of the candidates and look at the section that titled 'issues' and read their statements. Sometimes they make their policy and issues statements vague and ambiguous. If this is the case with a candidate that you are considering, then don't vote for that candidate because you don't know what you are getting.
Want to know all of the candidates who are running and what their websites are?
You can check that here: http://www.vote-smart.org/index.htm

Next, look and see who is giving money to these people. You can do that very easily here: http://opensecrets.org/ This handy website lists every member of Congress, every candidate, and shows all of the financial contributions for their campaign. This is a good way to see who has influence with the winner.

If you plan on voting for a Democrat or a Republican then you are PART OF THE PROBLEM, and I ask you to also not vote! The Republicans want to expand the government, take your children's money and erode your civil liberties. The Democrats want to expand the government, take your money (and your children's money), and also erode your civil liberties. They are practically the same party with very little difference between the two.

Democrats pander to the poor/minorities, Republicans pander to the religious community. Both groups are being USED by these two parties in order to gain political power. Do you think the Democrats really care about the poor? Not unless it buys votes. Do you think the Republicans really care about the religious conservatives? Not unless it buys votes.

Are you happy with the country as it is? Would you like to change direction? Polls have suggested that the majority of voting citizens are not happy with the state or direction of our nation, yet keep voting for Republicans and Democrats. Isn't a popular definition of insanity: "repeating the same thing over and over again but expecting a different result?"

Personally, I will be voting for any candidate that is NOT a Democrat or a Republican. I realize that most 3rd party or independent candidates do not have a chance to win (yet) but I also want to send a crystal clear message to the current political cartel/oligopoly that they do NOT represent me and I will no longer support their stranglehold on the American democratic process.

Why don't others vote for 3rd party or independents? In most races there are plenty of 3rd/independent candidates that are conservative or liberal and do not have a (R) or (D) next to their name. However many voters 'want to be on the winning side' and cast their ballots in that manner. Lots of people say they don't want to waste their vote on someone who will lose. I have a question to people who vote with the idea of 'voting for the candidate who is most likely to win' -- since when did our democratic process become a sporting event?! Voting for the person most likely to win is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you want change, think about changing the way you vote!

And finally, if you do not have a good understanding of history, if you have not educated yourself on our democratic process, if you do not understand the rule of law, if you have not read the Constitution and Deceleration of Independence (which are written in plain English by the way), then PLEASE do no

Re:Let me answer your question with this statement

[Hatta]

The answer is not to just go out and vote for the sake of voting, but to spend some time learning about your candidates for the sake of your county, state, and/or country. If you don't know enough to vote, you shouldn't just vote for the hell of it nor sit at home, you should do your civic duty and put yourself in a place to make an informed decision.

The problem is that once you spend the time and learn about your candidates, you realize they're all corrupt bastards and not one of them is fit to hold power. What do you do then?

Go Vote!

[Sigy]

If you are uninformed then do not check any of the boxes, but at least show up. If you do not show up at the poles then from a politician's view point you do not count. Even if they want to, they cannot spend time watching out for you because they need to spend all their time pleasing the people that do show up. Especially if you are young you should at least show up just to show that politicians should not ignore our age group (since the ballots are not associated with your name they will not know that you did not actually vote for anyone).

Re:Let me answer your question with this statement

[bomb_number_20]

No, I think I got it.

In that post, the author explicitly says he can make an informed decision because he knows that blagojevich cuts funding to education and that that is an important issue to him.

Here's the quote:

"Can I make an informed decision? I can when it comes to education: vote against him."

My point was that it's not really an informed decision. He may know Blagojevich will cut funding to education, but he doesn't know what Topinka will do with respect to education. There seems to be an implied relation that might not exist. Just because Blagojevich supports cutting education funding doesn't mean Topinka must support increasing it.

He's still missing half the equation and, therefore, guessing. It's a best guess, sure, but it's not as informed as one might think.

He does then go on to say that knowing about both sides is the best way to vote, which I agree with.

There's a better choice

[Anonymous Coward]

The simple answer is no, you should not vote. In the simplest terms, an uninformed vote is an irresponsible choice, and as such is one that you should not make.

Your premise is sound, but your conclusion is invalid.

Yes, an uninformed vote for a candidate you don't know enough about is an irresponsible choice. However, a vote lends more than just support to one candidate or another; it also lends support to the process itself. Going to the polls to vote is a civic duty.

So, you know nothing of the local candidates (even the third party ones), are too lazy to search the web for information about them, are a sufficiently anti-social cave-dwelling geek that you can't find a fool in the same district to use Heinlein's suggestion, and don't want to submit your own name as a write-in lest you get stuck with the job. The solution is simple: cast a blank ballot. Walk into the polling station, don't select any options, submit your ballot, and walk out. You have at least supported the process.

I've done this twice in the local school board elections. Once, because I didn't have time to track down the candidate's positions, and once because when I tracked them down, they were all a pack of idiots. Thank ghod I don't have kids.

Ignorance is not the point...

[F1Rumors]

A statistical probability that there isn't an even distribution of ignorance?

Actually, that is precisely the point of unionised voting - something that, historically, regularly put the Labour party in to power & kept them there in the UK.

The principle is that, whatever your knowledge of the candidates, your vote is directed according to your Union, which gives the Union power, and hence a say in the running of the nation. In this fashion, coal miners, teachers and so on were able to have a surprisingly large voice, via the combined might of the trade unions.

Of course, it is also one of the reasons why Thatcher's "breaking of the Unions" was a significant piece of UK political history, as it took a long time for Labour to regroup when their power base was weakened.

So, when answering the original question, "should you vote if you know nothing about either candidate," you have to who consider not only whether the voter is attempting to put in a candidate on the basis of their stated policies, in which case ignorance can be misleading, but also whether they may be achieving a voice from directed voting, as ignorance plays no part there...

Re:Let me answer your claim with a rebuttal

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Um, really? Why? It seems to me like "not saying anything" is not quite the same as "saying something". But in any case, if you want to make some kind of symbolic statement by casting an empty ballot, go ahead. At least it shows that you gave it some thought. We simply take issue with the guy who stays at home and thinks he's "Fulfilling His Civic Responsibility" and/or "Fighting The Man" by rambling cynically into the comment box at Slashdot, to distract himself from the fact that he's just too lazy to get off his ass and vote. You're not one of those guys, though, so you're cool.

2. Yes, obviously you have the right to complain about whatever you want to. That completely misses the point, though. The OP's point was: if you don't like the policies that are being enacted, and you want to continue complaining on the intertubes*, that's fine, and you should do that. But if you want to actually change things, it often helps to vote. It certainly doesn't hurt.

3. Dude. Read the OP's post. He pre-empted you. The fact that we're a representative republic doesn't change his argument. You still have to participate.

3.5 Can we stop with the "Democrats are Republican clones" canard? Just because it's repeated so often, doesn't make it true. Sure, we're all disappointed/angry that the Democrats are more conservative than they should be, but there are still significant differences between them and the Republicans, and if you can't see that, you haven't been paying enough attention. Just take a look at how any of the "Key Congressional Votes" went down: the Democrats opposed the Republicans on all of these issues. Therefore, if you care about any of these issues, replacing a Republican with a Democrat will make a difference.

4. It's fairly obvious that "simple proportioning" doesn't apply in this case**. The OP argues that, if you vote, you'll try to spare more time total to consider the issues.

*(Ok, maybe instead of calling it "complaining", you'd like to call it "being informed and expressing your opinion on the internet". That's certainly a lofty and laudable goal. But it's possible to do that, and also vote. They're not mutually exclusive.)

**To further illustrate the ridiculousness of this argument, try to actually apply it: "I've got a fixed 24 hours of time to consider issues. So if I vote on 2 issues, I get 12 hours of informedness per issue. If I vote on 1 issue, I get 24 hours of informedness per issue. But wait - if I vote on 0 issues, I get INFINITE INFORMEDNESS PER ISSUE!" ... ... ... Is this your argument for why we shouldn't vote? That last step makes no sense, so the best you can get is to argue that everyone should only vote on one issue. And even then, your argument is still flawed. Informedness is not a linear function of the amount of time spent researching; it's more like a sigmoid - at some point, you'll plateau (meaning that you'll be informed enough to vote). You don't have to spend all 24 hours, and become maximally informed on an issue: maybe you only need to spend 4 hours to become informed enough to vote.

Overall, a good effort - I give it a 2/5 - but still no cookie for you.

Re:Let me answer your question with this statement

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, I DO vote (still anyway), but I'd like to force people to inform themselves before they vote. Too many of them don't seem to give a flying s**t and end up supporting murder or harming their fellow citizens with stupid laws.

A basic intelligence/informedness test should be mandatory, like "what does your candidate really stand for? (a) choice 1 (b) choice 2." It's funny when self-declared pro-liberty small-government types endorse wildly spending warmongering GOP candidates.

Of course this all leads to the ultimate solution: just let citizens vote on all issues every four years; legalize pot yes, war no, tax break yes, make tuition deductible yes ... There's really no need to have representatives deciding over everything, right? And I don't think anybody would die just because some law or regulation is passed a year later than it could be. (Yes, exceptions in an state of emergency would be ok.)

Re:Admittedly uninformed vs. obliviously uninforme

[Anonymous Coward]

Something to ponder.

I don't know which is worse, a nut like Pat Robertson, or a nut like Bob Robertson.

Re:Let me answer your question with this statement

[jdavidb]

Anyway, IMHO if you don't vote you really don't have any leg to stand on to complain about any governmental laws.

And if you do vote, your complaints still don't do any good. Nobody ran on a platform yesterday that said, "Stealing doesn't become right when you have a majority vote." No matter what, somebody is going to get screwed over and stolen from by the tyrants who won the will of the majority yesterday. There's not a single blasted thing we can "vote" on that doesn't require us to steal property from people or infringe rights of people, other than the basic laws of "do not steal" and "do not restrict someone's liberty except in response to aggression from them," and those were settled a long time ago even though we ignore them today and grant government a monopoly on breaking them, claiming that it becomes right because they have the "will of the people" (democracy). I'm still not sure how that differs from Divine Right, where it was the will of God (as expressed through people with weapons...).

Stand up and quit authorizing people to steal in your name. If you believe in a cause, support it yourself. If it's worthy, people will join you. If not, don't take what doesn't belong to you to support it. Tell those people who claim to "represent" you that you did not authorize them to steal and that if they really want to represent you they will step down immediately.

If Congress decides to attack Iraq or invade North Korea, and you get drafted, DON'T COMPLAIN if you didn't vote.

Slavery and involuntary servitude are wrong no matter how anybody votes. Why is such an issue even open as a possibility under a democracy, if "democracy" means "freedom"?

If Congress decides to massively raise your taxes, DON'T COMPLAIN if you didn't vote.

Stealing is wrong, no matter how anybody votes.

In a nutshell, GET OUT AND VOTE!, regardless of whether you consider yourself informed or not.

Regardless of how you voted yesterday, you voted to steal from people and infringe their liberty. If you voted, you supported legalized theft. The only solution is to dismantle this inherently wrong system, rather than giving the power to break the law to a different crop of people every two years.

Be greek or begone

[What me a Coward]

Man what a moron! Or maroon your choice.

    If you can't take the time to be informed and make an intelligent choice then the accent Athenian's had an answer to folks like you. Either you get involved and are informed and vote or you get fined and or banned from the city. Banning from the city was by vote by clay pottery shard called an astrakhan (hence the term ostracized) and meant you were kicked out of the city for ten years.

    Sounds like a good idea for the US!

  Ok Athens didn't really have a true democracy, At first it was a democracy or "Demos" in name but was in fact in control of the rich and powerful but later it became a democracy by force if you will were everybody had to take part in the process or risk fines or being kicked out of the city. By stark contrast the modern US form of decision making is to let people vote or not which leads to a large majority now a days to not even bother to take part in the process and then grumbling and pissing and moaning about things afterwards and then saying why bother my vote doesn't matter anyway!
    Of course not because so many people like you don't bother to even go out and vote to begin with or even bother to try and be informed at all.

    So why even bother to take part any of politics here or anywhere for that matter anyway? I'm sorry to lay the smack down on you like this but if you don't want to be involved you might as well..... Ok I won't go their but it sounds like you will so..

    Don't stand around here asking us what we think just Go!

    That way the rest of us can get on with the process and well does it matter to you since you don't seem to care anyway?

Re:Let me answer your question with this statement

[Anonymous Coward]

"regardless of whether you consider yourself informed or not."

This is one of the stupidest things I have read in a long time.

Re:Let me answer your question with this statement

[krotkruton]

When I wrote the line "Can I make an informed decision? I can when it comes to education: vote against him.", I knew someone would point out that knowing one side doesn't mean you know both sides. However, I didn't want to write a four page essay that covers every possible interpretation of what I was saying. As the GP pointed out, you kinda missed my point, only its more like you skipped my point and brought up a new one, which is fine.

As for your comment, you're right, I should have been more specific. I know (or believe, since you can't "know" anything for sure in politics) that Rod is bad for education. I think (notice my opinion) that education has better odds of being supported if just about anyone else was in office. With that belief, I can make an informed decision to vote against Rod for the case of education. Since it is impossible to know exactly what someone will do on any issue, I believe that that constitutes an informed decision for education.

Back to my original point, believing what will happen for one issue does not mean you will make an informed decision. If I vote solely on the fact that some politician supports abortion or is against stem cell research, then I'm not making an informed decision as a whole.

Vote By Mail

[bill_kress]

Give up two hours of your time. Vote by mail and as you are going through the choices, check out the stuff in the voters pamphlet. It's pretty informative and usually shows both sides of the issue fairly well.

If you have questions after the pamphlet, hit the internet and see if you can find more.

That said, when it comes down to voting for candidates, I recommend voting for independents whenever you get the chance. It's not really throwing away your vote (the only way to do that would be to vote for a republican or a democrat), but it is showing support for opening up of the current one-party system (the corporate party). If they get 5 percent of the vote, they start to get matching funding which will help them compete.

Re:Let me answer your question with this statement

[LMariachi]

I'm pretty sick of that stupid assertion. Of course we live in a democracy -- a democratic republic is a form of democracy.

Vote anyway

[Jonathan_S]

Ok, there is basically no chance of this getting noticed, a full day after this went live, but...

Politicians tend to ignore groups that don't vote. After all, if they don't have to worry about you voting them out of office, they don't need to cater to you.

Kind of like how politicians tend to avoid working on laws that appear to harm senior citizens. It's not because they love old people, its because the AARP is really good about getting out the vote for or against candidates they feel threaten them.

Even random votes (which I am not encouraging) show that you are willing to show up and be counted. It raises the possibility that next time you (and others like you) might well vote against the current winner. To mitigate against that the newly (re)elected politicians are more likely to focus at least some of their efforts on things that they can plausibly claim benefited people like you.

It might not be much, but it's more than they'd do for non-voters.

It's not too hard to be informed enough

[mutterc]

Background: I'm somewhere to the left of Noam Chomsky, and live in Raleigh, NC.

Here, in most every race, there are two choices: a right-wing nutjob (e.g. the Republican candidate for US House in my district) and someone else.

Another example: In my state Senate district race, the Dem was somewhere center-right, but not too bad. His opponent said in his profile in the local paper, that his first priorities if elected would be: Get an anti-gay-marriage amendment passed, increase funding for charter schools, deport all illegal immigrants from the state, require abstinence-only sex ed in schools, and lower the corporate tax rate. *plonk!*

Find a publication you agree with on some/most issues (in my case, the local alt-weekly), and check out their endorsements. Even if you don't go along with their endorsements, you'll get at least enough information to know who to vote *against* in a lot of races. (A publication opposite to you in the political spectrum can help in this area as well. I know the political spectrum is not one-dimensional, this is just an approximation).

That's true

[Ogemaniac]

For most of my adult life (I am 31) we have actually been paying our bills. The problem is that the debts run up by previous generations continue to roll with interest. You are one of the few people I have seen notice this besides myself.

Democracy is bad

[Uart]

Informed or not, it's impossible to make a good decision, because all we get is the slick spin of whichever candidate's materials you might be privy to. You'll never know what the truth is or WHO you are voting for unless you work almost full time to investigate these guys yourself.

Ultimately politics have gone to hell, and no matter who you vote for you are making a bad decision.

We need a new system.

Re:Let me answer your question with this statement

[_vapor]

Wars have been fought, people have been killed, even recently in our country's history, to ensure that everybody would have the right to vote.

While I don't discount this, and consider such people generally heroic, the fact that people have fought and died to ensure my right to vote is not reason enough to exercise that right. Many blacks died during the civil rights movement to fight for their right to use any public bathroom they want (for example), but it doesn't make me unpatriotic if I'm a black man who, by choice, never uses public bathrooms.

Obligatory Nazi Post

[wikinerd]

Is an uninformed vote better than no vote? Just think that Hitler came to power with uninformed votes. You got your answer now, didn't you?

Re:Let me answer your question with this statement

[Lord Ender]

You vote for constant change on the assumption that a corrupt politician who has been in DC for 1 year has less ability to abuse his power than someone who has been there for 15 years.

Re:Let me answer your question with this statement

[Neoprofin]

From what I saw from the close elections and referendum results is that people aren't really sick of being conservatives, or voting as such, they are however very sick of scandals. I think if the Republicans can distance themselves from the idea of corruption, very possible with Rumsfeld stepping down and many of the most awkward Republicans leaving office, they stand a decent chance for the elections in 2008. The left has been predicting the winds of war changing for 6 years, and if the closest they can come is 49 senate seats and a house majority (offset quite a bit by the overwhelming number of Gay marraige bans that when through on the same ticket) after all that time of ramming it down peoples throats (and the Republicans doing ti for them) what a bunch of criminals and nuts Republicans are, then whatever change people are for isn't one I've been privey to. I certainly wish they would, anything would be more intersting then another two years of the same arguments I've been hearing for the last six.

true democracy sucks

[NateTech]

The fact that a 100% democracy would seriously suck has already been documented and studied for many years by Sociologists.

That would also mean that encouraging idiots who are uninformed to vote and actually getting them to go do it would be a bad thing, no?

Re:Let me answer your question with this statement

[Eivind]

That's the dilemma about US "democracy". I put that in quotes because I find it somewhat questionable if a system where one cannot in good conscience vote for the candidate one prefers, and where millions of peoples votes carry no weigth deserves the label.

In your presidential elections, for example. It is (currently!) an absolute definitive given that either the democratic candidate or the republican candidate will win.

If you live in a state where it's "winner takes all" of the electoral-college members, this means that voting for any other candidate than one of these two is, in essence, only increasing the chanse that your least-favourite of the two will win. It actually goes so far that left parties in the US are accused of handling the rigth the victory on a silver platter simply by running a candidate at all !

If you live in a state where it's "winner takes all", and it's very clearly a democratic or a republican state, then, paradoxically, you really can vote for your favourite. But only for the sad reason that it doesn't matter at all. If the Reps get 70% they're gonna be the largest party anyway, so it doesn't matter if you vote democratic, green, liberal or anyting else.

So, in many cases, the system (in the USA) forces voters to in effect answer the question: "which of these two do you dislike the least?" rather than the question one would wish to ask, namely: "What is *your* favourite candidate ?"

It's frankly shocking to someone who is accustomed to, for example, Scandinavian election-law. It's not even close to perfect here either, but atleast it's hugely much more fair. Proposional representation in larger districts ensures that in pretty much all cases you can vote your honest opinion, and have that count.

The end-result, offcourse, is that no single party tends to have a majority. For the simple reason that it's rare that more than half the population supports 1 party (among the 8-10 currently available choises). So mostly our government tends to be a coalition between 2 or even 3 parties, which frankly, I see as an advantage.

an undecided should question one's citizenship

[rogtioko]

On a more specific scope,
just two days ago, I decided that I was totally wrong investing in a mutual fund stock.
Consequently I have decided to stop investing in stocks altogether.
If a specific link in a chain is faulty, one should get rid of the chain.
Once a person has made a stand concerning citizenship, it should be very clear whether he or she will or will not vote. And if the decision is to vote, a person should vote purely in one's own interests.

The only thing worse than an uninformed vote is...

[Anonymous Coward]

The only thing worse than an uninformed vote is a political party that made an ass their mascot. No, I'm not talking about Kerry.

Re:Let me answer your question with this statement

[Johnny5000]

Given a choice only between, say, two pro-life or two pro-choice candidates, it would not surprise me were a considerable number of people to simply abstain from voting in that race.

I see what you're saying, but in that case I would argue that it's better to accept the fact that a pro-life (or pro-choice) candidate is going to win either way, and vote for the one you find more agreeable on other issues, even if abortion is your #1 issue.

define "informed"

[amigabill]

How well informed are those who think they are? "I voted for that guy because he said he supports side A of issue X and I agree". Well, both Bush41 and Clinton said "no new taxes", and both of them broke that promise and raised taxes anyway. Sure, we can go look up web pages for candidates and see what they say about issues, but how do we know they'll actually vote that way when it comes to that?

My dad thinks he's informed. He votes for candidates because they have an R next to their name. He thinks that's the right thing to do. Doesn't matter who it is or what kind of a person they are, as long as they're R then they deserve the job. D's are a bunch of socialist commies who want to take his guns away, R's are going to let him keep his guns. That's all that matters to my dad. Is he "informed" enough to rationally vote for the best suited candidate for each and every individual office from the candidates available to choose from? I don't think so, but he does. Ironically it seems to me that his R buddies in government are working toward disarming the people via all the gradually more restrictive "anti-terrorist" nonsense they're turning into laws, but he won't hear any of that.

how to inform voters

[sup2100]

I registered to vote, but then when I looked at the ballot I flustered by all the postions for which I new nothing about. Between classes I had maybe half an hour to try to research the positions and I could not find a consolidated unbiased source of information. As such I gave up in defeat and rationalized it by saying all the major races in my state are aldready determined anyways. I realized that I've voted for officers in many student organizations on campus, and I have been a hundred time more confident about those then I have been about actual elections that matter. In most cases I based my judement of a short speech and a printed bio, yet even this paltry information is more than what I have for state elections. As such I propose creating a simple database in which each candidate can submit both a short (maybe 100 words) and a long article (perhaps a 1000 words) describing why we should vote for them. Granted these articles will be ridiculously biased, but they will be biased both ways and voters will at least have somethign to coompare. Of course it would be helpful if this was a government backed initiative and there was a mass effort to inform voters that such a database exists. As I was reading in other posts there are some sites, like the league of women voters that provide a good summary, but I did not know about this before the election and of course there is no way to know what sort of biases may be in these summaries.

voting is garbage

[partowel]

voting is one sheep and four wolves deciding what to eat for dinner -- someone I can't remember

I never like who is on the ballot. its pointless.

vote for person a, b, c, d, etc.

I want a box that says "I don't like any of them".

THEN i would vote.

I vote for no one.

2 sides of the same coin

[deadlock911]

Voting in the united states is pointless anyway, though if you must vote just vote for the challenger (the grass is always greener on the other side and at least they haven't screwed you over........yet)

party loyalty sometimes means voting against party

[Medievalist]

What would be the point of me, as a (nominal, L leaning) Republican, voting for a Democrat even if he/she were a stirring speaker, wonderful statesman and generally agreeable with my own positions on policy?

That's an easy one. Let me use your earlier semi-quote of RAH to answer you:

"I will not vote for a person with such a gross moral defect as to present a menace to the Republic, regardless of party affiliation."

And that's why loyal Republicans won't vote for neo-con tools.

I'm proud that I've voted against George Bush more times than any non-Republican. Because I vote in the primaries - and I vote for actual Republicans, not for torture-obsessed stalinists like the Bushes or treasonous big-government liars like Reagan.

As Terrence Mann used to say "I will know you by your works". I see the works of these traitors, I don't even have to hear their endless lies to know they are morally and ethically defective.