Why do so few Americans vote?

[Verlander]

People don't care. In the US you have the right wing Democrats, and the more right wing Republicans. Similar situation in the UK, the parties are all much the same, and those with firm policies don't actually enact them when they get power. If I was American, I think the ridiculousness of the whole thing would put me off, but perhaps that's viewing the charade through my cynical British eyes.

I work with statistics for a living, I'm under no illusion as to how much difference my vote actually makes. Too many stupid people in the world.

 

[FoolKiller]

The biggest problem I see (and it is a problem here in Canada too) is that your vote doesn't count the same as someone else's vote does. It's all based on population density which makes sense to a degree but it pretty much means that if you live in the wrong area then your vote doesn't actually count.

 

[Ace Morologist]

A.) Voting is a boring hassle and I've got stuff to do.
B.) No matter which guy I vote for, he's just going to do whatever he wants (or his PAC supporters want) anyway.
C.) I only have politicians to choose from, and politicians are awful.
D.) I live in a district that predominantly votes against how I WOULD vote, so why bother?
E.) One vote doesn't make a difference. Who ever won or lost a major election on one vote?

Those are my best excuses.

--Morology!

 

[Panthera]

The biggest problem I see (and it is a problem here in Canada too) is that your vote doesn't count the same as someone else's vote does. It's all based on population density which makes sense to a degree but it pretty much means that if you live in the wrong area then your vote doesn't actually count.

This is the depressing thing about living in Alberta for elections, I'm not in one of the few ridings that might be up in the air provincially and I'm a bit north of what must be the only riding in the province where a non-Conservative win is even a theoretical possibility, so the end result is that if I could pull the magic of convincing 10,000 people to change their voting plan to match mine it still wouldn't matter, and federally the entire province is essentially irrelevant (really in Canada, Ontario matters, Quebec matters, and everything else combined adds up to halfway mattering)

 

[Robert Marrs]

My biggest reason for not voting thus far is that I have realized its all the same. Maybe a few social policies change, maybe one candidate is more handsome or another candidate say's he wants to help the poor but at the end of the day its all the same. Most politicians will never pick the interests of his people over the interests of the corporations that actually run this country and the very few that do never make it far. The worst part is im not sure what is to blame. Unbridled capitalism itself or just plain greed.

 

[Norithics]

Voter apathy is a strong force. When you have a lot of under-educated people in regards to the issues, they're given the mistaken impression that they don't have to care about politics and everything will just go hunky-dory if they don't do anything about it. Which couldn't be more wrong, and is incredibly dangerous, but there you have it.

 

[djl3485]

One problem is the voting system. The electoral college is messed up. Why should people vote if their vote doesn't matter.

This system is why a candidate can win the election but lose the popular vote. It should be discarded and replaced with a direct vote.

 

[broca]

First of, newer voter turnout numbers are missing on wikipedia, which can be a problem as voter turn is imo generally sinking in western countries. Voter turnout in the german national election 2009 for example was 70,8%. Still much more than 50%, but also much less than the 85% wikipedia gives as a minimum.

Also, your comparison seem kinda off, as in america voting in national elections often really is useless, as the majority voting system means that often your vote really doesn't count while voting in local elections can make a real difference. In Germany it's the other way round, in that local elections are much less important than national elections, which shows in the voter turnout (e.g. local government elections in the german federal state Schleswig-Holstein: 2013: 46,7%; 2008: 49,5%; 2003: 54,5%).

So, an interesting question would be how voter turnout is compared for the local elections in the usa, where people probably care more about them than national elections and the national elections in places with a strong central state (e.g. france, germany), where people care less about local elections.

 

[viranimus]

Such an easy question. The answer is almost as simple as it is depressing.

Voting is letting your voice be counted to stand for something. In the US at least when you vote all you are doing is letting your voice say "I approve of how this does not work by participating in it"

Seriously. It is simple as that. Just about any halfwit knows that the "choices" the public is presented with are irrelevant because they cannot and will not do anything in the slightest to represent what the people want or work for the good of the people.

So the question becomes why would anyone want to squander a perfectly good day doing something that only actually accomplishes making the problems these choices are supposed to alleviate worse? It is literally like asking Westboro baptist to head up the national referendum on tolerance or asking the Klan to write civil rights legislation.

Edit: This also takes it a step further because it illustrates just how well thought out our decisions are. What should be our most important choices as a country are decided by those with vested interest in the outcome and those gullible enough to think their vote means anything.

Ahhh the smell of democracy. It is the smell of greed, deluded desperation wrapped in the wafting aroma of the south end of abandoned stables. Full to the brim of horseshit.

 

[Kajin]

Because the only two choices are always incredibly depressing? The only reason Obama managed to stay in office in spite of massive voter disapproval was because Mitt Romney, for all intents and purposes, came across as a borderline psychopath.

 

[Raikas]

Apparently less than 50% of Americans vote, compared to other Western countries such as Belgium, Sweden, Germany and New Zealand which all have over 85%. Why do you think this is?

In a fair number of countries you're required to vote by law, so of course they have higher numbers. And some countries just make it easier than others.

I'm a Belgian national living in Canada and the consulate actually sends the paperwork to your home. Americans living here have a much harder time. My sister was born in the US and has American citizenship as a result and when she decided to register to vote a few years ago she found that it's not nearly as simple to vote in the US elections. They required quite a bit of paperwork, followed by joining a party (apparently non-party-members can't vote from abroad at all), followed by more paperwork - it's not nearly as straightforward. If a country makes it that difficult to vote, is it any wonder that people don't bother?

 

[The White Hunter]

Green Party - Obligatory enviromentalist party, wants wind farms everywhere (not a bad idea, really)

And I bet every single one of them would object to having a windfarm built within viewing distance of their house.

I concur though, UK politics is a fucking mess at the moment. My constituency is such a solid lib dem seat that I may aswell write Aquaman on my ballot and leave it at that.

 

[ryessknight]

I dont vote. I think its a waste of time and i dont want to be forced into jury duty. I just dont see the point. I dont care about politics and dont really trust the voting system after that bullshit with bush and florida years ago. Not like one vote matters anyways.

 

[Griffolion]

-snip-

Yeah, it's really terrible. I live rurally, the area is quite upper class. So it's a Tory area. I voted Tory in the last general, because I couldn't in good conscience let Labour back in after that they've done to us. Lib Dems I just couldn't take seriously, everyone else was a non-entity. And despite what you think of him, Cameron does at least have the backbone to do what he's set out to do, even if his plans seem to despise the poor.

 

[The White Hunter]

-snip-

Yeah, it's really terrible. I live rurally, the area is quite upper class. So it's a Tory area. I voted Tory in the last general, because I couldn't in good conscience let Labour back in after that they've done to us. Lib Dems I just couldn't take seriously, everyone else was a non-entity. And despite what you think of him, Cameron does at least have the backbone to do what he's set out to do, even if his plans seem to despise the poor.

I have no real axe to grind with Cameron, no, my problem is with the completely idiotic policies of the Chancellor. Anybody who's studied macroeconomics for more than a couple of days would have been able to devise a more sound recovery plan and would have been able to stimulate spending and growth much more quickly.

Our national debts were a problem, but they're still massive and the stagnation of the economy to save so little is a preposterous trade off.

Not to mention the education minister is also an indecisive fuckwit with no idea which way he's trying to go.

Sadly it seems that our politics have decayed to the point where we're just screwed no matter who's in charge.

 

[TwiZtah]

Another big part of it is that the major parties in the US, the Democrats and the Republicans, don't really represent voter issues all that well. If you have an ideology that clashes with both parties, then you really don't care who gets voted in since you hate both candidates either way, and if you vote for a third party you're basically throwing your vote away in most cases. And that's just talking about voting in national elections. Local elections are even worse, since almost no one cares to follow the candidates so barely anyone knows who is running for what positions, and what the pros or cons of different candidates may be.

I like to think that it's not entirely because Americans think their vote is insignificant compared to the other registered voters, but more like they think that it doesn't matter who gets in power.

So you think there'd be a lot more voter participation if there was a full spectrum of viable political parties?

I never really understood this line of reasoning, because there are lots of political parties in America. But there's only two "leading brands" so to speak. The two-party system isn't enforced on any regulatory basis, it's just that if you aren't Coke and you aren't Pepsi, then nobody cares. And if nobody cares, then you won't be able to scrape up enough of a marketing budget to make people care, so it's a vicious cycle.

However, I've been wondering if the potency of Internet-based viral marketing could give rise to a virtually 'free' political campaign with enough momentum to challenge the two major parties. And if not that, what would it take to get voters to consider a third party?

You should watch this, it teaches you lots of stuff about the two-party thing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo

 

[Kittyhawk]

Interesting post. I do find the U.S system interesting but like someone said perhaps its old and broken. Perhaps after so many years of two parties many people have become disillusioned and worn out with little different changing. Maybe there's room for reform and some change there.

What I don't understand, is why the U.S doesn't allow online voting. If people could just log onto a voting website/ap with whatever details and vote that way, they'd not have to leave work to do it. If this happens, please correct me. I hope voting via mobile phones becomes more of a thing.

I do get that sometimes it feels like your vote doesn't count. I'm over in the U.K, and there have been times where I have not voted. Sometimes because of lack of choice, other times I didn't like any of the candidates policies. Add a politician saying something stupid and you roll your eyes at them and wonder why you bother.

I do agree on one thing. In the U.K, probably because we are a small nation, its a lot easier to set up a new party and eventually get a chance to have your say on whatever subjects are raised, even on tv. While paying attention to U.S politics, I would like to hear what some of the smaller parties have to say, especially when they seem to get the ghettoized brand from the main stream press, who love the 'one on one' of the Demos and Repubs more.

The big problem is that if you don't vote, you have less to say and complain about if things go wrong, having opted out of potential change or so we are taught. A real case of damned if you do or damned if you don't.

 

[Lunar Templar]

Cause my vote is basically meaningless. Doesn't really matter what side i vote for, they're pretty much interchangeable, and none of them actually have the peoples interests in mind.

 

[James Joseph Emerald]

You should watch this, it teaches you lots of stuff about the two-party thing.

That video is great!

I tend to forget that other countries don't have an 'alternative vote' system. Hard to believe Ireland is ahead of the curve on politics (in that respect, anyway).

 

[Splitzi]

Many Americans grow up disillusioned with politics and are just totally apathetic. This makes sense considering our system is so freaking retarded. Your vote is meaningless if:
A) You live in red/blue state and vote the opposite party
B) Your party loses (it's a winner take all system)
C) The electoral college tells you to fuck off and votes differently
D) The politician you voted for lied during his campaign and doesn't fulfill his promises
E) You vote for a third party or a write in

So it's no wonder people don't vote. To top it off people have to work and a lot of games come out on Tuesday in November.
And even if you do vote all you are really doing is giving lobbyists someone to buy votes from. 'MURICA everyone...land of the free and the home of the brave, where 49% of people can vote for someone and have no representation for years.