Remix.run Logo
llmslave2 15 hours ago

This is a common sentiment but it doesn't make any sense. Voting for the wrong politician is worse than not voting at all, so why is it seen as some moral necessity for everyone to vote? If someone doesn't have enough political knowledge to vote correctly, perhaps they shouldn't vote.

maeln 13 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Someone, I can't remember who, explained it better than me, but the gist of it is by not voting, you are effectively checking yourself out of politician consideration.

If we see politician as just a machine who's only job is to get elected, they have to get as many votes as possible. Pandering to the individual is unrealistic, so you usually target groups of people who share some common interest. As your aim is to get as many votes as possible, you will want to target the “bigger” (in amount of potential vote) groups. Then it is a game of trying to get the bigger groups which don't have conflicting interest. While this is theory and a simplification of reality, all decent political party do absolutely look at statistics and survey to for a strategy for the election.

If you are part of a group that, even though might be big in population, doesn't vote, politician have no reason to try to pander to you. As a concrete example, in a lot of “western” country right now, a lot of politician elected are almost completely ignoring the youth. Why ? Because in those same country the youth is the age group which vote the less.

So by not voting, you are making absolutely sure that your interest won't be defended. You can argue that once elected, you have no guarantee that the politician will actually defend your interest, or even do the opposite (as an example, soybean farmer and trump in the U.S). But then you won't be satisfied and possibly not vote for the same guy / party next election (which is what a lot of swing voters do).

But yeah, in an ideal world, everyone would vote, see through communication tactics and actually study the party, program and the candidate they vote for, before voting.

llmslave2 5 hours ago | parent [-]

I won't dispute there can be utility in voting, I just disagree with the moralizing.

In fact I think what you said about the older demographics being pandered to by politicians is a great point. Their voting patterns are probably having a net negative impact on society and really they should vote less. But they don't, and so politicians pander to them.

Capricorn2481 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I don't have a stake in forcing people to vote or not, because I generally agree that uninformed people shouldn't be pressured to make a last minute decision if they don't want to. I think everyone knows elections are at their least honest days before the vote.

But to engage with your question, not voting is the same as voting. You are forgoing your voice and giving more weight to the people that do vote. It's limited to your district, yes, but whatever the outcome, you gave the majority power to do that. So it's not surprising that people get frustrated when non-voters see themselves as "outside" of politics, especially when they complain about the state of things.

llmslave2 5 minutes ago | parent [-]

I'm not so sure not voting is the same as voting (if you meant the opposite my apologies). Imagine the train switch scenario but it's an unknown amount of people on both tracks, do you pull the lever? If you don't, do you still assume culpability for the outcome? I don't think there is a simple or easy answer to that.

Also a lot of people who chose not to vote have become disillusioned by the common narrative around political action, the democratic process, and even the concept of political authority. It's extremely grating to be berated (not saying you, other people) about not voting when they still believe the things their middle school teachers taught them about politics and tend to be the least politically knowledgeable out of everybody.