Why should I vote?

I have a limited working knowledge of American Democracy. What I do have was given to me by the mediocre American public school system and whatever you are given in a four year of college. I know that voting is my right and a privilege but I am completely apathetic. I think all politicians are liars and they only say or do what they believe will get them votes. That being said I do have a little guilt for my apathy. I just don't know why. Why do you vote or better yet why do you care? Why invest time and emotion into someone that may or may not do anything that's been promised?

You can't complain if you are doing nothing to fix the problem. Voter apathy is a big problem and actually encouraged by some political campaigns because it ensures that only hard core supporters will go vote. If you think the main politicians are liars and don't want to vote for them then at least vote for an independent or a third party.

If for no other reason than because you're often voting on things that aren't candidates, like bond issues, new laws, and occasionally Constitutional amendments for your state.

After Obama, I can certainly see being dispirited about the whole process... if even that guy, with those amazing speeches, could turn around and just be more of the same sh*t, then what hope is there? But as corrupt and nasty as our leaders are getting, you have to show up to vote them out of office, or they just keep getting more and more corrupt.

Showing up every year and voting against every incumbent blindly would probably do some good... and if you take some time to investigate, you'll find that some politicians are actually reasonably honest, and worth keeping in office. But just showing up and voting against all incumbents would do something to help fix the problem, and would take almost no effort.

Malor wrote:

Showing up every year and voting against every incumbent blindly would probably do some good... and if you take some time to investigate, you'll find that some politicians are actually reasonably honest, and worth keeping in office. But just showing up and voting against all incumbents would do something to help fix the problem, and would take almost no effort.

I've taken the general stance of voting against incumbents, unless I'm presented with some compelling argument not to. I don't believe the founding fathers intended elected political office to be a career, and if anything it may help to mitigate the problem of the so called "iron triangle".

The amount of sophistication in today's political campaign system has devolved into who can blow the dog whistles that only their followers can hear. Sometimes the opponent gets really pissed by the noise and you have some stunningly inelegant repetition of nonsensical catch phrases by multiple people across multiple formats as the two sides dig in and defend themselves, waiting for the storm to blow over. But amid all the noise there should be something that you care about, something that excites you, gives you hope, or fills you with a seething rage that only murder can squelch. Murder or casting a vote.

I don't think it's apathy. I think it's a tone deafness. The way the message is being communicated is not right for everyone's ears. Only the extreme edges of the debates really hear the whistles clearly. Everyone else just get a headache.

So, in conclusion: find something to get pissed/hopeful about, pick a candidate and turn off your radio and TV until late October. Check in to see if your issue is still square with the person you picked, then go punch a card. Voting is not about getting what you want, it's about being part of the fight for what you want.

As a side note, everyone who does not vote... I can't even begin to describe my feelings toward you. But again, that's part of the partisan debate, isn't it? I really care about the pile of history and sacrifice that holds up our freedom, and I don't take kindly to those who mock or disregard it.

I guessed I did imply that I don't vote. The only time I didn't is when I moved and failed to register. I have just never cared or been passionate about my vote. I always voted straight ticket, blindly. I don't care about the whole process or the people I have voted for.

Malor wrote:

But as corrupt and nasty as our leaders are getting, you have to show up to vote them out of office, or they just keep getting more and more corrupt.

My only problem with this logic is that it hasn't really proven true over the last few decades. Seems like regardless of the choice, the end result is more corruption; we're just picking how rapidly that corruption is eating away at us.

Farscry wrote:
Malor wrote:

But as corrupt and nasty as our leaders are getting, you have to show up to vote them out of office, or they just keep getting more and more corrupt.

My only problem with this logic is that it hasn't really proven true over the last few decades. Seems like regardless of the choice, the end result is more corruption; we're just picking how rapidly that corruption is eating away at us.

I'm not sure we have any evidence that the system is any more corrupt than it ever was -- including during the time of the hallowed and sainted founding fathers.

Bullsh*t, Paleocon. The real corruption started with Lyndon Johnson. It was junior grade amateur hour stuff before then.

Here are a few highlights:

William Blount


James Wilkenson

John Quincy Adams
Samuel Swartwout
George W. Crawford
Simon Cameron
Andrew Johnson (perhaps the most corrupt American president ever)
Credit Mobilier
Three highlights from the US Grant administration herehere and here Oh and that is nowhere near a complete list for Grant.
Neahmiah Ordway

And that's all without cracking into the twentieth century.

Voting is one thing, but the fact that after that you have no say anymore for years...??!! That's just wrong. Soon there will be more revolutions I think. Even in westernized countries.
Countries are just flocks of people that can be skimmed for money. That's what it has turned into these days.

I don't think my vote makes any sort of difference, and there certainly isn't anyone I actively WANT to vote for. I still vote, if only to be able to say, "at least I tried."

But Malor, the idea that we need to vote for party B to get rid of party A is what prevents any real change. If things are crap during a Democratic administration, voting for an equally corrupt Republican isn't going to fix that. Nor will voting for an equally corrupt Democrat when we're sick of that Republican.

Sparhawk wrote:

Voting is one thing, but the fact that after that you have no say anymore for years...??!! That's just wrong. Soon there will be more revolutions I think. Even in westernized countries.
Countries are just flocks of people that can be skimmed for money. That's what it has turned into these days.

I think that's a little cynical. The government does provide us with some benefits, even if you might argue that the cost is too high.

Canada has yet to invade my neighborhood, and it's been at least a week since I lost a car to a roadside bomb.

I've taken the general stance of voting against incumbents, unless I'm presented with some compelling argument not to. I don't believe the founding fathers intended elected political office to be a career, and if anything it may help to mitigate the problem of the so called "iron triangle".

Actually, that's not so. There were some early attempts in Congress to try out an amateur politician approach, which failed roundly. Which part of the Constitution bans politicians from re-election (outside the two-term limit for Presidents, which was put in place in the 40's, I think)? Term limits were not left out because no one thought of them, they were left out because the benefits of a political career to the country outweighed the debits.

I'm pretty sure 21 states have enacted term limits in the last two decades or so, and 5 of them have since pulled back. What has been found by studies is that politicians who are term-limited are *less* responsive to constituents, *less* engaged in the issues, and *more* interested in making connections to become lobbyists after their terms expire. Kind of the opposite of what you might expect, but obvious if you think of the problem as "how do we engage politicians in their district issues?", which clearly would favor a long-sitting person instead of a short-termer.

It's funny that people's idea of a fix to the problem "Why are my representatives incompetent?" would be "send in someone with no experience and get rid of him after his term is up". I mean, seriously?

MacBrave wrote:
Malor wrote:

Showing up every year and voting against every incumbent blindly would probably do some good... and if you take some time to investigate, you'll find that some politicians are actually reasonably honest, and worth keeping in office. But just showing up and voting against all incumbents would do something to help fix the problem, and would take almost no effort.

I've taken the general stance of voting against incumbents, unless I'm presented with some compelling argument not to. I don't believe the founding fathers intended elected political office to be a career, and if anything it may help to mitigate the problem of the so called "iron triangle".

I frequently vote for write-in or 3rd party if only to try and do my part of send the message that none of the above are good enough. And, like Malor said, some of the more pernicious legislations comes in through the back door. Through measures put to the public and ballot initiatives. If anything vote on those.

I broke the above rule to vote against George W because his administration was so bad. I would do the same with Obama, but the attack on contraception nonsense is enough to push me into the arms of Obama, even though I think he's been worse than Bush on privacy issues.

EverythingsTentative wrote:

Why do you vote or better yet why do you care? Why invest time and emotion into someone that may or may not do anything that's been promised?

A Canadian perspective:
For a long time I was avidly into politics. I kept myself informed on all of the big issues, researched stuff that I was ignorant on, wrote a political blog, and even volunteered my time to help answer policy questions for my local candidate. But for the past few years I've being increasingly disillusioned with the system and the big three parties that have a vested interest in keeping the broken system in the state that it's in, and furthering their own interests over those of the people who elected them.

As a result, last election I went in to vote - which I feel is important - but intentionally spoiled my ballot (wrote "NO" beside each candidate's name). The fact that I voted was logged, however I did not have to lend my support to any of the corrupt politicians on the ballot. Now - I don't know if this is an option open to you, but if it is... consider it.

You might also want to consider some third party candidates. Dan Carlin has interviewed two just recently: Buddy Roemer (here) and Gary Johnson (here). Both men seem like better choices than Obama and Romney, and a viable third option might help revitalize the American electoral system. Food for thought, anyways.

I plan on voting for Gary Johnson if he's on the ballot in my state.

I think people overestimate the importance of any one person in politics, especially the president, especially when it comes to issues like the economy.

It's also hard for me to get truly angry at people who spend most of their time in office fundraising so they will have enough money to get re-elected. Campaign and election reform is the issue I can get behind the most, as it affects all other political issues. As it stands now, the person with the most money and the most advertisements wins more of the elections more of the time. That's bleh.

Paleocon wrote:

Here are a few highlights:

William Blount


James Wilkenson

John Quincy Adams
Samuel Swartwout
George W. Crawford
Simon Cameron
Andrew Johnson (perhaps the most corrupt American president ever)
Credit Mobilier
Three highlights from the US Grant administration herehere and here Oh and that is nowhere near a complete list for Grant.
Neahmiah Ordway

And that's all without cracking into the twentieth century.

Excellent. Nice to have my faith in humanity properly crushed before noon.

I vote. And I'm with DSGamer - I'll write in Cthulhu with Nyarlathotep as his running mate before I vote for the lesser of two evils. I've done that for several presidential elections and it looks like this next one is headed that way. The only one I would have voted for is Huntsman and just having him there as the littlest fairy at the christening by voting him in as Vice President won't do enough to counteract the presidential candidates we seem to have.

You said it yourself - you just vote straight party ticket without thinking. No wonder you don't care. There are differences between the individual people, and there are times when the person doesn't really match the jersey they're wearing. Washington's latest gubernatorial election was a prime example. The choice was between a fairly conservative Democrat and one of the sleaziest Republicans I've ever seen and I grew up with Ted Stevens as my senator. I voted for the Democrat and I've been a card-carrying Republican all my voting life.

Paying attention while voting is necessary, but only part of the solution. There are many things you can do beyond voting and if more people did them I believe it would make a great difference. I'm not talking about going out politicking for someone. I'm talking about being informed on issues and communicating with your representatives. All it takes these days is an email, and if nothing else they get read by staffers and counted. Don't just get counted in the voting booth. The system doesn't work if only the squeakiest wheels get heard.

The fact that that the parties don't mean what they used to mean anymore is another thing muddying the waters. Look up Teddy Roosevelt's presidency, and then read the list of his accomplishments again remembering that he was a staunch Republican. He had his problems, and was definitely a man of his times for good and ill. But he was also a trust-buster who worked with unions. He was a huge conservationist who founded the National Parks systems to saving the land for future generations. He passed the Pure Food and Drug act, and the Meat Inspection Act both of which have saved countless lives over the years. He was very progressive regarding race appointing the very first Jew to a cabinet position, and numerous African-Americans to positions in government and brokered a deal with Japan to stop discrimination against the Japanese in schools. That's what I thought Republican meant when I started. I don't even recognize the jerks we've got up there now.

I believe the Democratic Party has a similar issue. Watching the way they cowtow to corporate interests against the good of the people and quail against any opposition instead of fighting for progress infuriates me.

I'm not loyal to a "party". That's just an organization. I'm loyal to my country and I do what I can to try to help choose the best people I can to do the work of running it. Then I keep myself informed as best I can and do my best to communicate to them and others how I feel about issues.

New York Times wrote:

...the Swiss study suggests that we may be driven to vote less by a financial incentive than a social one. It may be that the most valuable payoff of voting is simply being seen at the polling place by your friends or co-workers.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/06/ma...

Apathy for the big things like a presidential election can happen depending on where you live. When half the states are already projected red or blue on the map, you feel like there's nothing you can do to change it.

But there's plenty of local candidates, and as someone above mentioned, other laws that may be put to a vote, that are well worth your time to get out and choose.

Keep caring, keep participating: that's your true responsibility as a citizen. Care enough to help make the society that has supported you and in which you live a better place.

Vote in the way that you believe will result in the best outcome for your community (even if it's writing in Cthulu).

Even if you believe it's six-of-one half-a-dozen-of-the-other with representatives, do your best to understand any ballot issues fully (read up on them ahead of time). (i.e. don't fall into the trap of voting for something that sounds good in the blurb they put on the ballot, only to find out later that lowering taxes was at the expense of something you care about.)

And if you can spare the effort, don't just vote but also actively agitate for changes that you believe in. That makes it more likely that when the time comes to vote you'll have opportunities to make a real positive difference.

LobsterMobster wrote:
Sparhawk wrote:

Voting is one thing, but the fact that after that you have no say anymore for years...??!! That's just wrong. Soon there will be more revolutions I think. Even in westernized countries.
Countries are just flocks of people that can be skimmed for money. That's what it has turned into these days.

I think that's a little cynical. The government does provide us with some benefits, even if you might argue that the cost is too high.

Canada has yet to invade my neighborhood, and it's been at least a week since I lost a car to a roadside bomb.

Slightly cynical. I don't see governments protecting us from big companies anymore.
Living as an EU citizen (Dutch) I hate the European Market and everything it stands for. Yet my government pushed it through without any good reason, except 'it's so great, no more money exchange when you go on vacation!' and 'it will be better for our companies and trade'. So far prices on everything and anything have gone up.
And now we are being confronted on having a EU President, that isn't even elected. EU laws that override our own national laws.
So where is the benefit that a good government should provide for? It has been downhill all the way so far.
Now, if we got to vote on the bigger issues every time, at least I am involved on issues I deem important. Now we are signing off on a sort of carte blanche.
Hoping that the empty promises will be kept, and if not, there is no one being held accountable besides not voting for that person or party next time.

Hypatian wrote:

Keep caring, keep participating: that's your true responsibility as a citizen...

I agree with you, but I think voting is the least effective way to do that. I no longer vote. Does that make me a bad citizen?

My take is simply work hard, take care of your family, friends, and respect the other members of your community. I used to get wrapped up in issues that I thought would cause the downfall of our society, then I realized that all I had to do is take care of the world I interact with everyday.

I have disentangled my brain from the typical political discourse and the world has never looked better. I got so wrapped up in idealistic stances and forgot to take a look around to see how the actual world was doing. If everyone just took care of their own responsibilities and respected their fellow citizens, then we would all be great. Voting may give you a fuzzy warm feeling, much like driving a Prius, but it is a minor act that has almost no impact on society or the people in your life.

Sparhawk wrote:

Slightly cynical. I don't see governments protecting us from big companies anymore.

That we feel safe enough to worry about things like companies is a testament to how good our governments are at maintaining peace and order (even if we don't like the cost).

Another Canadian perspective:

When I was a student, voting was super easy: who's got tuition as part of their platform? Sweet, I'll vote for them.

I deeply empathize with the OP's frustration with politics. They're all dirty, corrupt liars, thieves, and murderers as far as I'm concerned. But voting is one chance to do something, and even though it seems practically meaningless, it can add up. Definitely I would agree with not voting for the party, but for the person.

I don't know how it works in the US, but in Canada we vote for our representative in the provincial legislature (for provincial elections) or federal legislature (for federal elections), and whichever party gets the majority is where our premier or prime minister respectively comes from. So I research my riding's candidates (it can take all of half an hour reading their platforms on their websites before heading out to the polling station, if you wish) and choose whoever I feel will do best for my riding. I don't even worry about thinking beyond that level, because it's the local level, by voting for my MLA or MP, that I can make a material difference I'll see.

That said, I only look at the Liberal (centre), NDP (centre-left), and Green (left) candidates—I will never vote Conservative (pre-Obama America Jr).

I would also say to always vote for someone—never vote against a party. My province, BC, has a notorious history of fickle amnesiac voters who are constantly voting their provincial parties out, and it's really irritating.

I believe voting is everyone's duty. It can take you nearly no time to make at least a minimally informed decision—think of at least one issue that's important to you and find out who's promising to do something about it. And sometimes it pays off, even if in the slow and two-steps-forward-one-step-back way democracy works.

heavyfeul wrote:
New York Times wrote:

...the Swiss study suggests that we may be driven to vote less by a financial incentive than a social one. It may be that the most valuable payoff of voting is simply being seen at the polling place by your friends or co-workers.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/06/ma...

Gimme my sticker!

wordsmythe wrote:
heavyfeul wrote:
New York Times wrote:

...the Swiss study suggests that we may be driven to vote less by a financial incentive than a social one. It may be that the most valuable payoff of voting is simply being seen at the polling place by your friends or co-workers.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/06/ma...

Gimme my sticker!

Then slap it on your Prius. Ford may have EcoBoost®, but a Prius with an "I Voted" sticker has EgoBoost®.

If you don't care enough/don't understand enough to understand an issue/person and form an opinion, don't vote. That means voting on ballot measures or candidates you do care about, and skipping the vote (or opting for a joke write-in) for city water commissioner or your state representative if you don't care. Uninformed voting, which often hinges on misinformation and sound-bite advertising, is frankly destructive to the political discourse and successful selection of reasonable candidates.

If you do care about and understand some facet of politics(and I hope we all do!), spend your time and effort there. Donate money, volunteer time, try to inform people and encourage them to vote. If you just can't work up the interest in part of it, so be it. I have very little ability to care about my county politics. My city, state and national politics I care strongly about, but the county level doesn't seem to bring anything to the table for me. My wife fits into the latter category, while I am a minor political junkie. When she becomes a citizen, I will happily explain positions and candidates to her, but I refuse to tell her how to vote or what to vote.

In summary, vote responsibly.

Edited to add:
If you care about local politics but hate your local politicians, I'd suggest trying to find some independent candidates to advocate for. You can actually accomplish changes on that front since the elections are a much smaller scale. There is a lot that can be done at the local level that can start to snowball to the state/national level.

heavyfeul wrote:
Hypatian wrote:

Keep caring, keep participating: that's your true responsibility as a citizen...

I agree with you, but I think voting is the least effective way to do that. I no longer vote. Does that make me a bad citizen?

Nope. That's more or less what I meant by saying that. The key thing is to do whatever it is you do consciously. I personally think the system works better when people choose to vote than when they choose not to. But either way is much much better than [em]not[/em] consciously choosing one or the other.

(Or to put it another way: [em]Choosing[/em] not to vote is still a kind of voting. Not voting because you can't be bothered to care is an abrogation of your responsibilities as a citizen.)

I still think it's in the best interest of everyone—even if they've written off all representatives as corrupt or inept, and have chosen not to support any of them—to remain aware of regional votes on specific issues.

It's a lot harder to argue that all ballot issues are corrupt or inept, and a lot easier to learn exactly what you'll be choosing by supporting or rejecting them. So I think people ought to pay enough attention to those things to not let them pass by without an individual conscious choice on each issue.