36 Responses to “Why I Don’t Vote…”

1. Kevin
   May 18th, 2009 at 11:21 am

   

   Oh Adam… I appreciate your well written article, but I have to say that I couldn’t disagree with you more. The idea of limiting the ability to vote to only “X” group of people is borderline communist. You want only a select group of people to determine what is right for you, the community, the city, the province and the country. Perhaps you should move to N. Korea and see how that’s working out for them?

   While I understand what you’re saying in terms of trying to have a real understanding of ALL the issues because they all matter, that’s not what democracy is all about. The beauty of each of us being able to vote in our own governments is that we get to choose which issues are important to us and which aren’t. For those issues that don’t matter to me yet still require my vote, I will admit to making my decision based on the advice of others (whether they are parents, friends, commercials, whatever), however for those issues that do matter to me- I am not going to stay silent and think that someone else is better qualified to voice MY opinion than ME.

   By failing to vote, you damage the strength of the whole. What’s more is that your analogies of wanting the best surgeon or financial adviser are acceptable, yet misplaced. My vote allows me to ensure that I play a part in voicing who the BEST candidate is. By saying I shouldn’t be allowed to do so because I’m not “qualified” (as a Poli-Sci major) is, frankly, insulting.

   Choosing not to vote means that you’ve chosen not to participate in a very important part of the world around you. You can claim no part in the success of your government, just like you accept no blame for any mistakes they make. It’s taking the easy way out and failing to take responsibility as an adult in a democratic society.

   Would you have excused an American from Bush winning a second term in office just because they said they didn’t vote? I don’t think so.

2. Topher
   May 18th, 2009 at 12:59 pm

   

   We already limit the ability to vote to only “X” group of people. No one under the age of 18, no convicted felons, etc. etc. I think political education has a valid place in determining who can vote.

   I didn’t vote either this past provincial election. Not for the same reasons as Adam, but I’m tired of voting for the lesser to two evils. I had no confidence in any of the people running, and my non-vote is my evidence of that, rather than evidence of my apathy or ignorance.

   By being a one issue voter, you run the risk of promoting someone who is vocally against something else you are for.

3. Artem
   May 18th, 2009 at 3:54 pm

   

   To begin, I’m with Kevin on this one. Adam, what you’re advocating here is no less than a complete destruction of the current social order in favor of (quite possibly) a fanatical dictatorship at worst, social decay and chaos at best. This may sound a little dramatic, I realize, and is in direct opposition to what you probably intended as the thrust of your argument, but it’s true. A poli sci student really ought to know better, assuming one allows for credibility in a pseudo-discipline.

   Topher: it is true that we already limit the ability to vote in this (and most other) democracies, however the basis on which we apply those limitations is itself quite limited. This wasn’t always so. As recently as the 19th and early 20th century many “white-african” countries, as well as the United States used “literacy tests” to effectively disenfranchise their black population. This is perhaps the best illustration of the fallacy of your view. Though literacy is obviously preferred, one need not be literate to realize that (s)he is being marginalized, one need not be exhaustively aware of one’s functional self-interests to know that they are being ignored and form a political view on that basis. Such a view is no less legitimate simply because its holder does not possess a diploma, for it is informed by real circumstance, and seeks to redress (however effectively) real hardships.

   You need look no further than the 1700-1800s to examine the birthplace of our current democracy. I suggest you read up on the French Revolution, as well as the road to unification of Germany (in 1871) to get a broad idea of whence comes our current system of values. There you will discover examples of the system you now propose – franchises first limited to a handful of aristocrats, then expended to include the gentry and land owners, then the merchant class etc. Though this is a fairly simplified model, each iteration left vital parts of society out of the political process. The basic problem: a section of society, however educated or ill informed etc. that has a functional impact on the existence of said society cannot be excluded from the body politic governing that society – that model simply does not work, history has shown it to be so.

   To borrow André Comte-Sponville’s dialectic, a community of people has to commune something that gives that community cohesion. In a case of a democracy, these are basic principles that allow it to function – such as freedom of opinion (however ill informed). It is guaranteed that people will disagree bitterly on almost any subject; however, as long as a critical mass of us agree on our inherent right to do so, our system of government is able to function. Institutionally assigning qualitative values to individual opinions based on some external criteria is a direct violation of this principle (with the exception of functionally/structurally necessary limitations, ie, the Criminal Code, etc). Our society exists only because we as its members believe in our inherent rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, in the case of the United States, and the somewhat less succinct but more articulated principles of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Limiting the franchise on any basis outside those already permitted by those documents (ei, born of out structural necessity) invalidates those documents, and therefore the social order they uphold.

   Forgetting the principles for a second, there is absolutely no functional way to make a system you propose equitable, in other words, anything other than a dictatorship of a single set of opinions. Again, history has shown this to be the case.

   As to your concrete examples: there is nothing illegitimate or ill informed about a “well to do mother” voting Conservative to keep her taxes down, nor is there anything illegitimate about anyone voting NDP, or Liberal or Green, we live in a diverse society with diverse interests, and a single, fit-all formula is simply impossible. Representative democracy is just that, representative, therefore fluid and ever-changing in its political makeup, but not its structural character. If you as a citizen do not feel represented, speak out, or better yet, attempt to represent yourself. If your self-interests are unclear to you, that is entirely your problem, and no vested right exists for you to limit anyone’s political activity based on your own apathy.

   If you do not speak, you cannot be heard, if you cannot be heard, you will not be understood.

4. Russ
   May 18th, 2009 at 7:17 pm

   

   Especially this election, when there was a chance to vote for electoral reform, voting makes sense. Whether or not STV is perfect, it would have empowered disillusioned voters who don’t like the “lesser of two evils” choices we have at the moment.

5. Topher
   May 19th, 2009 at 4:11 pm

   

   Although I’m probably opening this up to another 1000 word reply….

   fanatical dictatorship is worse than social decay and chaos? yikes.

   I never said literacy, I said political education. I am aware of the racial and class bias that can arise in standardized testing. I don’t like our current system, and I’m free to voice that opinion by my lack of voting. There have been no successful political systems. Just because this one hasn’t collapsed yet doesn’t mean it won’t. And I bet I could find a tonne of people to argue that it already has. History may have shown that there’s no existing functional way of limiting voting to a tighter group of people without descending into a dictatorship, but that does not mean it doesn’t exist.

6. Adam
   May 20th, 2009 at 2:45 pm

   

   To use your exact words Kevin:
   “The beauty of each of us being able to vote in our own governments is that we get to choose which issues are important to us and which aren’t.”
   What does less than 50% voter turn-out tell you?
   Following your logic, we should have everyone removed from office as a vote of non-confidence by default lack of voting.
   If your “great democratic” society that I “dodge being an adult member of” doesn’t have even half (HALF) of its eligible voters out then why is it YOU’RE right in your decision to vote and i’m wrong… if you praise the collective decision as what’s right for you and your country then apparently the correct decision is not even to show up election day… i guess i won the vote? You did run a good campaign though ;)

7. Artem
   May 20th, 2009 at 5:12 pm

   

   Adam (and Topher) I don’t have time for a proper response at the moment, but would like to point out an error in the basic premise of both your arguments.

   First of all, there is no such thing as a “lack of vote” because, as already stated, no one is denying your right to vote. Rather than “lack of vote” you mean to say a “decision not to vote.” The difference may seem semantic at first glance, but it isn’t.

   In your comment move you’re assuming that everyone who didn’t vote made a conscious decision to do so – much like yourselves – in effect ascribing an intent, or a political message (if you will) to all the “non-votes.” This is not an accurate assumption – people fail to vote for all sorts of reasons, not all of rooted in a political opinion. Therefore not all “non-votes” are indicative of a dislike/distrust of the political system and/or process.

8. Artem
   May 21st, 2009 at 2:16 pm

   

   Winston Churchill, who can always be relied upon when in need of an illustrative quote, observed once that “… democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.”

   Topher:

   “fanatical dictatorship is worse than social decay and chaos? yikes. ” Yes indeed, dictatorships always arise out of a period of chaos and decay, however periods of chaos and decay do not always give rise to dictatorships. I’d much rather live in a transition period, where opportunities abound rather than be stuck under an already entrenched dictatorship – been there, done that.

   “I never said literacy [tests], I said political education.” And I’m telling you that there is no practical difference between the two. What Adam has suggested, and you are supporting is some sort of tests of political knowledge, success or failure at which would determine one’s admissibility to the voting booth. To quote Adam:

   “I believe there should be a nation-wide test, for all those who would like to vote. The test should be in two parts: the first being an IQ test (ensuring no bias for those with a better education as a result of social or economic advantage) to guarantee the person scores at LEAST 100- the average IQ of a person; the second part being a test on the platform and recent history of the running parties.

   There is absolutely no way to make such a system equitable. Contrary to Adam’s later assertions no one knows ALL the political issues. Informed, intelligent people with a vast reservoir of political knowledge get that way merely because they are willing and able to brief themselves on issues which they find of interest. Enlightenment, as they say, is an active process, not a passive state of being.

   More over, not all parties have platforms, and (more shockingly) not all political issues are important, in that not all of them are important to everyone. For instance, while I may have a passing general interest in Quebec’s slightly different legal system, it is of no practical importance to me on the West Coast, unless I do business with Quebec or have relatives there.

   For reasons already touched at, it would be impractical to design a test based on ALL political issues in the country. First, the design process could not hope to keep pace with the emergence of new politically relevant information, and second, no one would pass. Who then gets to decide which issues are important enough? The importance of a political issue is itself a matter of political opinion.

   How would such a test be administered? Multiple choice would be efficient, but again impossible to administer fairly because each issue is multi-facetted, and one’s position on an issue colors one’s view of it. Short essay form would seem logical – to merely establish general comprehension. This of course, would mean that someone would have to read and grade all the tests, presumably before an election. This, of course, would mean that instead of a month or so, our elections would take YEARS.

   One need not take this clearly ludicrous view to its logical conclusion to see it for what it is. The basic premise of limiting political participation to a limited group of people, 2% according to Adam, is unsustainable. History has already proven this to be so – whenever a government limits political participation of an otherwise influential group (be they merchants, farmers, workers, gays, etc.) that government is invariably either overthrown, modified or otherwise made to reverse its position. Latest example: gay marriage.

   Topher: you said ” History may have shown that there’s no existing functional way of limiting voting to a tighter group of people without descending into a dictatorship, but that does not mean it doesn’t exist.” This is a flat out illogical statement: history has shown that no such method exists, therefore it doesn’t exist. I think rather than “doesn’t” you mean to say “can’t.” That would at least make your statement logically valid. However, that view is analogous to repeatedly touching a hot stove, expecting a different result every time.

   I’ve already pointed out your error in characterizing your decision to not vote as a “lack of vote” in an earlier comment. What you mean to say is that you are choosing to send a negative message about the political system through a refusal to participate, in effect a “negative vote.” You have every right to do this, however the problem with such a statement is that, by necessity, it gets lots and not heard. Not everyone who fails to vote, does so either intentionally, or as a means of sending any sort of message. Silence, in this case, cannot be heard.

   -Artem

9. gay person
   May 21st, 2009 at 2:21 pm

   

   omg story.

10. Topher
    May 21st, 2009 at 2:52 pm

    

    You’re arguing points I’m not even making, and putting words into my sentences that weren’t meant to be there. I said political education on purpose because it leaves it open for a wide variety of ways for it to be verified.

    And I’m pretty sure I meant lack of voting. Voting being a verb, the act of casting a vote, and lack being a noun meaning missing something. Therefore, put it all together, the missing of my act of casting a vote. Not my lack of the ability to vote.

    And obviously you knew what I intended, so why go to the trouble to pick out something so trivial, (and again with the whole paragraph regarding “Can’t” vs. “Doesn’t”). I’m not submitting a thesis here, I’m commenting on a blog.

    I’m all for discussion, but it’s hard to keep to the topic and take you seriously when you write so condescendingly.

11. Kevin
    May 21st, 2009 at 3:54 pm

    

    Adam, I understand your argument on you last comment, but still disagree. The fact that HALF of the voters didn’t get off their asses and fulfill their responsibilities as members of a democratic society yet have the audacity to complain about the current state of things, or use the excuse that they don’t vote because it doesn’t make any difference, or that- to your argument- they don’t know enough about the issues, to me just means that they are more to blame for some of the shitty politicians that are in power than those that actually voted.

    Those who try to claim no fault because they didn’t vote, or choose not to vote simply because they feel unqualified to make such a decision are, in my opinion, just taking the easy way out so that they can try to claim never to have been wrong. Consider a conversation between friends about politics, discussing a political leader who is currently in office and is in bad favor… you could still say “Oh, I didn’t vote for him!” in your situation because you didn’t vote at all (although the use of “for him” instead of “at all” presents a contextual lie of sorts). Consider the same conversation, only about someone currently in favor- would you then say “Oh he’s doing a great job, I’m glad he won… even though I didn’t vote”?

    I should also say that I never mentioned praising the collective decision as what’s right. Look at George W.- he won TWO terms in office… Do I think that was the right decision? Absolutely not- and I made sure I indicated that by VOTING against him. People make stupid decisions all the time as part of the “popular vote”- look at Proposition 8! Trying to use the excuse that since 1/2 of voters didn’t get out to do it means that it should be an acceptable alternative is akin to the old adage “if all your friends jumped off a cliff, would you do it too?”

12. Artem
    May 21st, 2009 at 4:12 pm

    

    Topher: Nowhere did I insert words into your sentences, changing their meaning. The only addition I made was the word “[tests]“, note the square brackets used to identify an addition to a quote inserted for clarity in a given sentence structure. Given that this particular phrase refers to something I said, I don’t really see your problem with it.

    I am quite deliberately equating the historical “literacy tests” to any and all measures of “political education” as a prerequisite to political participation. For reasons I’ve already explained. If you chose to present a reasoned argument against this equation you’re free to do so, of course.

    My point regarding word usage still stands, morphology notwithstanding. Your yourself stated that you’ve voicing a political opinion by choosing not to cast a ballot. Therefore a “negative vote” would be a more descriptive term than “lack of voting.” Your exorcising one, and Adam (and you, presumably) is in favor of imposing the other (quite different concepts). I strive for specificity in the use of language. Too often, in my experience, people who mean to say one thing end up saying something entirely different due to the jargonized way in which they speak.

    The “doesn’t” and “can’t” comment is equally valid – you challenged my point using a logically invalid structure, I should be entitled to point it out.

    I’m sorry that you’re feeling condescended to, though I can’t imagine why that would make it “hard to keep to topic.”

    I always welcome reasoned responses and challenges to any of the points I make and opinions I illustrate. The bulk of which stands unchallenged at this point.

13. Artem
    May 21st, 2009 at 4:16 pm

    

    Oh, I should also point out that in my previous comments, I am responding to both you (Topher) and Adam’s article, and subsequent comments, as the two of you appear to be in agreement, and dividing my responses would A. make them even large, B. take too long. Maybe this is why you think that I am “arguing points I’m not even making.” I’ve tried to make it clear when I’m responding to Adam or you separately, though perhaps I could be clearer.

14. Artem
    May 21st, 2009 at 4:26 pm

    

    Ack, before you all go pointing them out, I’m now aware of the several typos in my comment. The word “exorcising” which is meant to be “exercising” is particularly well placed, given the rest of that paragraph. Point still stands though.

15. Artem
    May 21st, 2009 at 10:06 pm

    

    As an addendum to my last lengthy comment (and I do really try to keep them brief) I was going to recommend books for you to read on subjects of history, politics, dissent, education and intellect.

    Instead I’ll recommend a movie – V for Vendetta, apart from being on exactly on point, it benefits from being visually impressive (things blow up), highly entertaining, and based on a graphic novel (which, they tell me, is cool). There is, of course, the added benefit of cutting down on all that reading.

    Artem

16. Steve
    May 24th, 2009 at 11:30 pm

    

    I have several counter-arguments to this column. First off, most democracies, including ours, are not direct democracies so being 100% knowledgable of every issue of the day is really not necessary and arguably not even relevant. You don’t actually get to vote on the actual issues yourself, you just get to pick the person who will do that for you (the ancient Greeks would have referred to our system as more of an elective oligarchy rather than a democracy). So theoretically you don’t need to know anything about anything except the candidate that you are choosing to represent you, and then that person is the one who is actually going to make those decisions, research the issues, get knowledgable on them and then vote for you. Just find out enough about the candidates to be able to figure out which one will do a better job for you and vote for that one. Sometimes all that takes is reading the brief bio of each one that each candidate already sends to your mailbox.

    A second argument is that if you do want to know about the issues, it really is not very difficult. There are usually only a few major issues of the day in any given election, and even reading one newspaper column that presents both sides of the argument will do the trick. In 15 minutes you know enough to cast a vote. You don’t need to know all the issues, but take a stand on one or two of the biggest ones and make a decision.

    Thirdly, even if you are not completely clear on where you stand in the broader sense of which party most lines up with your point of view, which is extremely rare even for those that don’t follow politics a whole lot, you likely have some gut instinct about where your affiliations lie – in other words, you really aren’t as ignorant as you think you are. Go with your gut. This is your subconscious mind pointing you in a direction.

    And finally and possibly most importantly is the fact that the less people actually vote, the more you concentrate the power into the hands of those that choose to vote or more particularly into the hands of those that really want to push for a particular outcome or agenda for a particular election.

    For a concrete example, I have spent much time wondering how George Bush got elected. But consider this. If only 50% of the population is going to show up at the polls and vote in a given election (as we just had here in BC), and you know that only 25% of the population are the people that really want you elected (and the other 75% possibly completely dislike you), all you have to do is fire up your base and get as much of that 25% to show up at the polls as possible to get you elected. Theoretically if you could get every single one of the 25% of the population that likes you to show up, this group could actually represent 50% of all the people that show up on election day and voila! You get elected, even though 75% of the population doesn’t like you! And you, Adam, as the person who didn’t show up because you couldn’t bother to find out anything about any candidates, read a single column in a newspaper of just plain vote with you gut based on where you think your affiliations lie, just helped the guy that 75% of the population did not like get elected.

    And how does the guy with only 25% support get all his supporters out to vote on election day? Often times it is by using wedge issues like gay rights to have his supporters panicking that the world will come to an end unless they come out and vote for candidate 25%. Ugly, divisive, hate filled, bigoted, homophobic – not necessarily but at the end of the day it doesn’t matter what tactic you use as long the biggest percentage of your supporters come out and vote and you count on the complacency of the rest of the electorate where only 1/2 will show up on election day. Not a noble way to win and certainly one I wouldn’t use, but it certainly can be effective. The power of 25% multiplies where people don’t show up at the poles and the result is people who really shouldn’t get elected do.

    The more people that actually show up and vote on election day, the harder it would be for someone to strategically count on the votes of one portion of the population to get elected. In fact I would argue that if 100% of the population showed up on election day, you could not ever get someone elected that only 25% of the population actually liked. But when 50% of the voters stay home on election day, you certainly can get elected but just ensuring that the biggest portion of those that show up vote for you. And that is why political strategizing in elections can pay huge dividends.

    Vote! It’s important, and it really does not require the grand effort or expertise you are claiming that it takes. Don’t empower those who would use your complacency to vastly increase their voting power. You really do know enough to help make your city, province or country a better place. Stop making excuses. In the time it took you to write your column, you could have learned enough to get out and make a decision and vote.

17. Adam
    May 26th, 2009 at 1:00 pm

    

    In the wake of the confirmation of Proposition 8 and the overwhelming “collective intelligence” of the Californian voters I find it almost amusing to read the comments calling my claim for intelligent and non-biased voters as “anti-democratic”… I’m reading all your guys’ status updates right now on facebook and I’m sorry, but if you praise the “value of democacy” as allowing the people to voice their opinion and control the fate of the country/state/province- no matter their upbringing, knowledge of the issues or intelligence- you really shouldn’t argue should you…? The people of California spoke: I think they’re crazy and controlled by an unfortunate and bigoted majority, but you guys said the majority rules- doesn’t really sound right when you say they “got it wrong” does it? ;)
    Sorry guys, you can’t quite have it both ways!

18. Kevin
    May 26th, 2009 at 1:33 pm

    

    You’re missing or confusing the point Adam. Things such as Proposition 8 shouldn’t be put to a vote to begin with. The majority is not supposed to have the power to withhold the rights of any minority. That is the crux of the issue- and the concept of protecting the minority even with a majority against them is also part of the democratic system.

    That aside, personally, I never said that I was going to agree with whatever the outcome was of a majority vote- regardless of the issue. Likewise, I never said that the majority vote was the end of the story- the whole debate was whether or not you should place your vote in the first place- which I still strongly stand by my opinion that you should.

    In cases where I am opposed to the outcome (such as with Proposition 8) I will clearly choose to work towards changing the result. I choose to be *involved* – both by placing my vote to begin with & doing something about it if the vote doesn’t go my way.

19. MKW
    May 26th, 2009 at 1:40 pm

    

    Yes Adam. But perhaps Prop 8 passed in the first place because Californian’s that think as you do in regards to voting stayed home and didn’t vote :) I think that in some cases that sort of inaction is as harmful as voting for the bad guy (whomever you see that as being).

    Secondly, the pro-gay marriage argument in California is that equal rights are protected under the constitution and any changes to the constitution requires 2/3 of the vote not 52%. But it was an argument that clearly didn’t so fly so yep, they’ll just have to accept it. But for those that voted against it, bitch all you want about the results. You did, after all, try to do something about it instead of staying home which is effectively a vote of indifference.

    Finally, and I’ll stop after this cause this thread has really pretty much covered everything else, but, the one thing that really bothered me in you article was the following: You claim that deciding the country’s future is so important that only the most politically educated 2% should be able to vote yet one of the reasons you don’t want to vote is that you don’t have time to research the candidates and their platforms. If the future of your country were that important to you, you’d make the time don’t ya think? Just a thought.

20. Rich
    May 26th, 2009 at 1:46 pm

    

    Oh Adam. Barf. Get off the fucking fence post. Blabbing about random farm policy and obscure legislation to validate your argument is so typical… reach for the extreme in an attempt to undercut someone’s argument when it actually only undercuts yours.

    Nobody knows everything about anything. Politicians don’t, their advisers don’t, I certainly don’t… but for someone so good at correcting other people’s mistakes and casting insta-judgments left, right and centre… you should be the first person in line at a polling station to put your X where your mouth is.

    Imagine one day when you move out and buy your own place. There you are part of the strata and they decide to plant some trees on the north Side. You live on the south side… it’s not going to improve your quality of life… but you’re gonna have to pay for it. Good thing you rallied all of the members on the south side to vote against it and then put them up on your side!

    Nothing is decided by those who do not participate in the decision.

21. Adam
    May 26th, 2009 at 3:03 pm

    

    Again, my voting is not “indifference” and I would argue not laziness either… I don’t know enough- PERIOD.
    That’s why I don’t vote, and again, no, no one can know EVERYTHING but SO few people even know enough, that’s what I’m arguing. Yes, I absolutely could devote more time to learning the issues but also, I could be volunteering more, I could be going to med school, I could be traveling the world… Instead, I find a balance essentially between all of those things and try to do the best I can for others and of course myself… politics is something I personally feel should be left to those interested and wise enough- not me. I don’t think I should be learning how to perform surgery, but maybe I can contribute through psychology… I volunteer at two different locations but adding 4- as great as that would be- seems crazy to me… I travel a few times a year and learn about other cultures, but everyday would be impossible… Yes Rich, yes Kevin, yes Steve I could definitely add politics to my repertoire but I’ve learned to pick and choose what I’m good at and dedicated to and I don’t think political issues are my bailiwick… I just don’t have the temperament for it and don’t want to fake it along with the many other “how did you vote?… okay, that sounds good” hoi poloi out there! Sorry, just doesn’t sound right to me.

22. Rich
    May 26th, 2009 at 3:29 pm

    

    Friend: “Hey Adam, want to go see a movie?”

    Adam: “I don’t know enough about any of the movies to pick”

    Friend: “I’m sure we can find one we like”

    Adam: “No. I’m not going. I don’t have enough time to download and watch and rate all the trailers.”

    ABSURD comparison… I know… for an absurd argument.

23. Adam
    May 26th, 2009 at 4:10 pm

    

    Friend: “Hey Adam, should I put my money into the stock market right now?”

    Not-Adam: “Well, I’m a concierge who’s never read a financial paper in my life, why would you want my opinion?”

    Friend: “Because everyone’s opinion matters! No matter what the education or knowledge base or reason for making said decision! It’s just my entire future!”

    Not-Adam: “Well, I heard the stock market can turn 100$ into a million, so go for it!”

    ABSURD comparison… i know… i’m just one of those crazies who thinks certain really difficult and multi-faceted issues should be discussed and decided upon by those who actually know what they’re talking about.

24. Kevin
    May 26th, 2009 at 4:45 pm

    

    Clearly we will have to agree to disagree, Adam- on your entire way of thinking on the issue. Your call it a “choice” not to vote because of a lack of understanding of the issues or thought process that “greater minds” should be the ones to make such decisions for you… I call it indifference.

    What’s more is that the whole idea of electing someone to office is so that they can be the person who “actually knows what they’re talking about” on these “really difficult and multi-faceted issues”. If you’re not going to play any part in deciding WHO is going to make decisions for you… how can you call that anything but indifference?

25. Adam
    May 26th, 2009 at 4:59 pm

    

    Kevin, you’re not voting to make a change in your society, you only vote because you like the sticker you get…

    Yes, it sounds just as rude and dumb when I denounce your professed reason for voting and impose my view of why you do it on you ;)

    And yes, I do understand what voting does… I just think we should have smart people doing it… Or maybe all the Meg Whitman’s should have their way?
    If: “This simple yet powerful fact is the foundation of our democracy. Regardless of one’s position on the measure, this ruling gives people confidence that their vote matters and can make a difference” had been said about an issue “we” as gay people wanted, got, and then subsequently defended, you likely wouldn’t want to vomit when you heard it ;)

26. Brett
    May 26th, 2009 at 5:03 pm

    

    I almost wish Canada would legislate mandatory voting. It would force people to make a decision (hopefully an educated one.)

    I do wish more effort was put into educating voters about the people running and about the important issues…but that being said, we’re all using the internet right now – we have endless information at our fingertips. Choosing not to make a decision sounds like laziness to me.

27. Adam
    May 26th, 2009 at 5:19 pm

    

    The information IS out there… let’s learn together:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wp76ly2_NoI

28. Brett
    May 26th, 2009 at 5:31 pm

    

    Haha well obviously some of the information out there is biased or just completely false. I don’t think you should see that as a reason not to exercise your democratic rights.

29. Adam
    May 26th, 2009 at 5:33 pm

    

    Right, only some of the info is “right” and “unbiased”… I’ll need a list so I can inform myself properly… thank GOD those terms aren’t subjective and that I have you guys to tell me what’s right ;)

30. David
    May 26th, 2009 at 5:43 pm

    

    So I’m deciding to jump into this, if for no other reason than today’s intense political focus (California Supreme Court, Obama’s Supreme Court nom, and Adam’s blog).

    I wish everyone was informed about voting, but that’s impossible. It is also impossible to choose who should be allowed to vote. In theory, it’s a nice idea perhaps, but completely unworkable. Who decides who passes and doesn’t? Once you remove the right of people to vote, it does not take that much to get a perverse outcome of those who can vote oppressing those who can’t or some other group.

    Sadly, there are lots of uninformed people out there. The lack of knowledge on some issues is apalling. Then again, a lot of people think that being a lawyer is like living on the set of LA Law or being a doctor is like living on House. The moral indignation I’m reading about on Facebook and this blog today is a good example. The California Supreme Court decision isn’t about gay rights. It’s about voter rights to amend a constitution. It happens to be about an amendment about gay rights. Way too many uninformed people want the court to decide a question that wasn’t put in front of the court. Sigh … maybe they should read the decision. The justices might as well have shouted that they think Prop 8 is bad – but it wasn’t their job to decide whether it is good or bad.

    Ok, that was a sidebar … However, it is another example of how no one will ever be able to decide who is informed or not.

    Adam, if you don’t feel informed to vote, don’t, and more power to ya. (I can’t believe I just said that BTW) I think you’re just being provocative with your idea (not a bad thing), but your proposed system is a dead duck from a practicality standpoint.

    To those who think that voting should be mandatory, I think that’s garbage. People look at low turnout as apathy or frustration with the political system. What about a different reason? Maybe they are just *content*. When I think of my friends who don’t vote, I think they are mostly just happy with life and are not too concerned which way the election goes. If so, let them be.

    Further, given how many gays seem to be oblivious to what question the CA court was ruling on today (a group one would think is informed), I don’t think I want to mandate all the other uninformed people to vote.

    As for voter education, who’s responsibility is it? The politicians? Media? It is really for the voters to sort that out because it is the only impartial way to do it.

31. Brett
    May 26th, 2009 at 5:44 pm

    

    I can see the issue has been thoroughly discussed and that you’re clearly not interested anymore, so I suppose it really doesn’t matter.

    And maybe you’re right. If you haven’t got the time, patience or brains to do the research and figure out what political party stands for the things you believe in, you probably shouldn’t vote. Ignorance is supposed to equal bliss, after all.

32. Jason S
    May 26th, 2009 at 7:25 pm

    

    Just because people are smart and are well versed in politics (Hitler, for example), it doesn’t mean they know what’s best for everyone.

33. Kevin
    May 26th, 2009 at 7:52 pm

    

    Adam, even if it is only for the sticker- at least I’m doing it. Your line of thinking is flawed because it’s not the way the system is designed… so, at the end of the day, it doesn’t really matter if it’s because you don’t think you should vote, or indifference… all it does is allow those with a louder voice to control what happens to and around you… and we all know that those with the loudest voices don’t always want what we want.

34. Steve
    May 27th, 2009 at 11:07 pm

    

    I just read all the responses since I posted mine. Adam: just glance at all of them again and note how many times the word “indifference” is used in reference to you. If one person thinks you are, it might be their own bias. When a whole lot of unrelated people start seeing you the same way, perhaps you need to take a hard look and see why people see why that is.

    Your decision not to vote only increases the power of those that choose to and allows for a smaller and smaller portion of the population to dictate the national direction. It allows the possibility for radical elements of society to take over. They are certainly happy to know they have one less person in their way.

35. Adam
    May 28th, 2009 at 9:08 am

    

    Steve, a lot of people in Canada and the States- unrelated except for their country status and lack of proper upbringing- look at gay people in the same way and use some pretty harsh words to describe them as well… not really sure we as gays need to start taking “hard looks” at ourselves just because johny-redneck thinks we should be chased out dodge. Again, perfectly proving why I don’t think democracy should be left up to the masses… Hell, if you took a vote a hundred years ago about “What to do with gay people”, we might have been silenced as a people for good (Even if “all of us” had come out to vote!)

36. Rich
    May 28th, 2009 at 9:38 am

    

    Adam!!!! Argh. Listen. Nothing changes unless people willing to make change take action. Your inaction, your indifference only empowers those pushing the status quo, pushing their belief system over all others. That is what everyone is trying to tell you. If you don’t care, just say it. Own it. But enough with the elitist bullshit.

    Politics is not static. It moves. It shifts as the public mood and values evolve. Elections, referendums and votes are the best barometer of the public mood. We may not always agree with the outcome, but if one cares enough then one gets involved to help change the hearts and minds of others. Then, hopefully, change happens.