The Poll Poll and Freedom of Choice

[mugaliens]

A friend sent me this link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/629/629/7360265.stm), which is nice compilation of the various election polls out there.

Before I proceed, let's take a moment of silence and recall the recent words of our friendly neighborhood Vulcan:

...political discussion not falling within the explicitly stated exceptions remains a serious rule violation, particularly this close to a major election, and will be dealt with accordingly.

ToSeek
BAUT Forum Moderator

Thusly, I'll open with: "This is not a post on politics. It's a post on statistics and the science of the way we humans make decisions." I repectfully ask your help in keeping it this way!

Thanks. ;)

Today, I came across an article entitled The Mystery of the Undecided Voter: Who and Why (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081029/pl_nm/us_usa_politics_undecided)?

Various ideas have been put forth as to why these folks remain undecided so late in the game. Personally, I don't see any mystery, as this phenomenon is repeated throughout nearly every venue in our society, from board meetings to bored movie-goers.

Wife: "What movie should we go see tonight, Fred?"
Husband: "Oh, I dunno. Any reshowings of Planet of the Apes showing tonight?"
Wife: "Fred! This is 2008, not 1975!"
Husband: "Oh. Well, then, you pick, dear."

The article asks, "What is wrong with these people?" I say, "Nothing." As Rush put it, "If you chose not to decide, you still have made a choice."

I'm thankful we live in a society where we have both the freedom to choose our leaders, as well as the freedom to refrain from making a choice.

The $24k question is "why do some people simply choose not to choose?"

I believe the answers are many. Hopefully, you can help me come up with a few more than I can think of:

1. They don't care.

2. They feel unqualified.

3. They feel equally torn between the candidates. Thus, a decision one way or the other would be no better than flipping a coin, and given any number of people who feel the same way, roughly half would vote one way, while the other half would vote the other, so why bother?

And then, upon reading that third point, I thought, "Why bother?" !

In a popular election (no electoral college) it really wouldn't make any difference in who finally wins, although if these halfbies voted, it would shrink the margins somewhat. But given our electoral college, their not voting results in wider margins, which may discourage an electoral collegiate from deciding against the popular vote (very rare, I know, but still possible).

So, possibly a concern about something very little.

Unless it resulted in a different person in officer for the next four years. Then, it wouldn't be so little.

At this point, I began to think much as the author of the original author does: "What is wrong with these people? Get out and vote!"

Your choice, though - entirely your choice.

Besides - the spread among the fence-sitters may not be evenly divided. If they actually voted rather than abstained, we might find their input turned the tide in more than one state during an election...

[tdvance]

I heard a recent theory that some "undecideds" are from a variation of what is called the "Bradley Effect," unwilling to admit their choice out of fear of being called racist.

There's another possibility too--so much importance is given to "the undecideds" and people like to feel important....

Finally, if you are called, you hear it's a pollster, and hang up before the question is asked, are you counted as an "undecided"? Probably not or it would be more like 95% undecided. But just a thought.

[PetersCreek]

Finally, if you are called, you hear it's a pollster, and hang up before the question is asked, are you counted as an "undecided"? Probably not or it would be more like 95% undecided. But just a thought.

How is one counted if the answer is a string of colorful invective? :mad:

[Cougar]

Various ideas have been put forth as to why these folks remain undecided so late in the game. Personally, I don't see any mystery, as this phenomenon is repeated throughout nearly every venue in our society, from board meetings to bored movie-goers.

Wife: "What movie should we go see tonight, Fred?"
Husband: "Oh, I dunno. Any reshowings of Planet of the Apes showing tonight?"
Wife: "Fred! This is 2008, not 1975!"
Husband: "Oh. Well, then, you pick, dear."

I don't think this is a very good "analogy." There are thousands of DVD movies to pick from. There are only two candidates, and they've been all over the media for the past year. I find it difficult to believe there are people who really haven't decided yet who they're going to vote for. I figure they must just be idiots, that is, if they actually exist. Haven't they heard of party platforms? :doh:

[BigDon]

Yeah barring of one or the other candidates being filmed running down the street nekkid waving a chicken in one hand and a gun in the other, I decided more than a month ago who I was going to vote for.

Chicago councilman or Naval aviator...hmmmm

[mugaliens]

I find it difficult to believe there are people who really haven't decided yet who they're going to vote for. I figure they must just be idiots, that is, if they actually exist. Haven't they heard of party platforms? :doh:

Sure, but many are non-partison, which is what we should be if we're to keep this thread alive...

Most of the time I know exactly what I want. Sometimes, however, if I must make a choice, I'll flip a coin, as my analysis to date says that either choice is equitable.

Many businesses face similar choices, particularly during board meetings, when, after being presented with various business ventures, board members get to rummage through all the pro-con arguements, projections, and pro-forma statements before flipping a coin.

It's much more common than you think. Coin-flipping, that is.

Now, a different person might come up with an entirely different choice, and for differing reasons. Just because a choice is clear to them doesn't mean that the choice is (or should be) equally clear to all, as each of us brings a different, often significantly different, set of baggage to the decision-making mill, which we thrust under the 12-ton grindstone, only to see our Samsonite finally meet it's match.

Back to my column, er, "OP," my point is simply that everyone's got a different shade of shades through which they view the world. Thus, the view from many people may very well appear fairly balanced.

(Not to me, though - I already cast my vote!)

[hhEb09'1]

I find it difficult to believe there are people who really haven't decided yet who they're going to vote for. I figure they must just be idiots, that is, if they actually exist. Haven't they heard of party platforms? I've already voted, so I'm above this sort of remark. :)

But, that can only be true if all of the people who vote for a particular candidate are idiots. Otherwise, there has to be a continuous spectrum, rather than a sharp cutoff between the choices, and given that there has to be a continuous spectrum of people related to those choices. They're not idiots, they're Libopubucrats :)

[eric_marsh]

I'm the kind of person who wants to make the right decisions and that means gathering information. If there are clear distinctions then the information gathering process may go quickly. In a more ambiguous situation I tend to delay reaching a conclusion as I gather more information. In some cases I may simply decide that there is not enough information to reach a firm conclusion.

In the case of the election I found it to be very easy to reach a decision based on my criteria. However I understand that there are those with criteria that is different than mine and as such they may not have obtained enough information to reach a decision. There will also be those who simply are not interested enough to bother.

[Trebuchet]

Some are tired of choosing the lesser of two evils, so choose not to.

[sarongsong]

...I already cast my vote!)Why is your location Germany?

[Jim]

There are some people who have such a fear of being wrong that they cannot make a decision. (I know. I have worked with many such through the years.)

Just fyi, early voting in Harris County is running about 150% of the 2004 numbers, and that was a heavy year.

[geonuc]

Some are tired of choosing the lesser of two evils, so choose not to.
Heh. Reminds me of my new t-shirt: Cthulhu for President - Why Settle for the Lesser Evil?

I made up my mind long ago because I'm a staunch whatever I am. In the primary, I had a real decision to make, but I made it fairly early (my candidate didn't win) and nothing happened during the primary season to change my mind. It was unlikely anything could as political campaigning doesn't generally reveal anything useful to me. Only media-driven issues that aren't really issues.

But I do know some people that are just not that politically-minded, so the choice is not evident to them. But they do want to do their civic duty, so they will go to the polls. I think it's those people the candidates are pandering to right now.

[BigDon]

Thanks for the new sig, Geo.

[Swift]

I find it difficult to believe there are people who really haven't decided yet who they're going to vote for. I figure they must just be idiots, that is, if they actually exist. Haven't they heard of party platforms? :doh:
I think eric_marsh hit the nail on the head when he talked about voters' criteria for candidates.

Personally, I look at the candidates' positions on various issues that are important to me and decide which of the two is closer to my opinion. I generally do not decide who to vote for based on such things as "character" or "niceness" or "experience" or "leadership" or any of those other similar characteristics. I have been known to vote for the biggest jerk, who you would not let your brother/sister marry, just because their positions on key issues matched mine.

But I suspect that I may be in the minority on that. I suspect that many people judge candidates either partially or completely on these other characteristics.

So, given that, I guess I can understand why one might be confused as to who to vote for. Though, my understanding is that at this point, only a few percent of the electorate is still undecided. Of course, that means they are the only ones who will still change their vote, and thus get all the attention, both from the campaigns and the media.

[timb]

A friend sent me this link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/629/629/7360265.stm), which is nice compilation of the various election polls out there.

Today, I came across an article entitled The Mystery of the Undecided Voter: Who and Why (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081029/pl_nm/us_usa_politics_undecided)?

Various ideas have been put forth as to why these folks remain undecided so late in the game. Personally, I don't see any mystery, as this phenomenon is repeated throughout nearly every venue in our society, from board meetings to bored movie-goers.
...
At this point, I began to think much as the author of the original author does: "What is wrong with these people? Get out and vote!"


You don't seem to realize that answering "undecided" to an opinion poll and not voting in the election. They are quite different.

[Jens]

Why is your location Germany?

What's the connection between why Mugaliens is in Germany and why Mugaliens has voted already? :confused:

[tdvance]

There are some people who have such a fear of being wrong that they cannot make a decision. (I know. I have worked with many such through the years.)

Just fyi, early voting in Harris County is running about 150% of the 2004 numbers, and that was a heavy year.

Oh I misread that first time through (imagine mentally putting a period after 150%)--ok, it's not like that small town in Indiana recently in the news for having more registered voters than its population.

[BigDon]

Heh. Reminds me of my new t-shirt: Cthulhu for President - Why Settle for the Lesser Evil? .

Though certain candidates do resemble some avatars (original usage) of Nyarlothotep...

[Jeff Root]

Many years ago I took the test to be an election judge. When I got a phone
call back telling me I'd passed, they also told me that I had to specify what
party I was afilliated with. The person told me that if it wasn't either D or R
I would be passed over, because the judges had to be representative of the
voters and the voters were (supposedly) overwhelmingly D and R. I had no
afilliation, and didn't want one, but I told the person on the phone to put me
down as "D" if the last digit of the phone number they were calling from was
even, or as "R" if the last digit was odd.

I can't make decisions.

Although I did decide which presidential candidate I'm going to vote for a
couple of months ago, and it was firmed up after seeing the last two debates
on TV. I decided on the senate candidate a few weeks ago. Lower-level
candidates? Haven't a clue. That could stop me from voting.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[sarongsong]

What's the connection between why Mugaliens is in Germany and why Mugaliens has voted already? :confused:None---but that wasn't the question. :)

[geonuc]

Though certain candidates do resemble some avatars (original usage) of Nyarlothotep...
Can't imagine who. :silenced:

You're welcome to the sig line. I got the shirt at DragonCon. Cthulhu is big there.

But back on topic: I think there's plenty of information on the candidates, whether it be 'values' stuff or more substantive information, for people to make up their mind. But some just aren't that interested and won't to decide until they have to.

I sometimes operate in that mode (not with elections, as I'm too politically minded). If I have a decision to make in the future and I know I can gain the required information quickly, I may put it off until the last minute. That's not procrastination; it's managing priorities.

[SeanF]

I don't think the "undecided voters" are really undecided about the candidates, per se.

I mean, I find it hard to imagine a reasonable person (who's been paying attention) who can't determine which of the two candidates more closely matches their own opinion - on any single issue.

I can, however, imagine a reasonable person who hasn't yet decided which particular issues are most important. :)

[mugaliens]

Why is your location Germany?

Because I live in Germany.

(in response to "What's the connection between Mugs living in Germany and voting early?)

None---but that wasn't the question.

Actually, sarongsong, a great deal. I'm an American living overseas. It's a bit difficult driving across the Atlantic to reach the voting booth before closing time, so we vote early, via mail.

[Van Rijn]

I don't think the "undecided voters" are really undecided about the candidates, per se.

I mean, I find it hard to imagine a reasonable person (who's been paying attention) who can't determine which of the two candidates more closely matches their own opinion - on any single issue.


There are more than two candidates. It's common to ignore the others, but it is another option for the undecided voter.


I can, however, imagine a reasonable person who hasn't yet decided which particular issues are most important. :)

Yes, that, and which you might think would be better at the job of being president. There can be one that a person agrees with on issues, and yet not think would be good in the office.

[Jeff Root]

Promotion of Space exploration and development is my #1 issue. I can't
generally vote based on that issue, though. I wouldn't vote for someone
who wants to create a spacefaring civilization of vampires...

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[timb]

The more interesting question is why anyone votes at all. Economists have been puzzled by this. Suppose you think candidate A's policies suit you best, and let's call the other candidate with a chance of winnng "B". Take your estimated wealth if candidate A wins, subtract your estimated wealth if candidate B wins. Multiply this number by the probability that your vote will decide the election (hard to estimate, but 1e-6 would be very very generous). That is your expected financial gain from voting. Unless you are already a billionaire that gain will be less than a dollar. Do you really value your time so low?

[BigDon]

The more interesting question is why anyone votes at all. Economists have been puzzled by this. Suppose you think candidate A's policies suit you best, and let's call the other candidate with a chance of winnng "B". Take your estimated wealth if candidate A wins, subtract your estimated wealth if candidate B wins. Multiply this number by the probability that your vote will decide the election (hard to estimate, but 1e-6 would be very very generous). That is your expected financial gain from voting. Unless you are already a billionaire that gain will be less than a dollar. Do you really value your time so low?

Spoken like an economist. What if you are a soldier? A mother? A priest?

[Logger]

The more interesting question is why anyone votes at all. Economists have been puzzled by this.

Not just economists, my friends who are political scientists are surprised voter turn out is as high as it is.

I like the argument that it's my civic duty to vote. If the election is not close, then my vote does not matter, in which case it is my civic duty to take an action which has no consequences. If the election is split exactly 50-50 without me, then my vote makes half the people better off and half the people worse off, and it is my civic duty to make sure that the people who agree with me are the ones who are made better off and the people who disagree with me are the ones made worse off.

Spoken like an economist. What if you are a soldier? A mother? A priest?

Spoken like a soldier, a mother or a priest.

[timb]

Spoken like an economist. What if you are a soldier? A mother? A priest?

Well, I was paraphrasing an economist's reasoning. In their terms the explanation would be that people must enjoy voting, or they are suffering from "limited rationality".

Soldiers are an interesting case because they have more at stake. A hawkish president (vs a dovish one) could greatly increase their chances of dying. So you would expect soldiers to prefer dovish candidates. However, I don't think military voting patterns bear this out.

[BigDon]

Well, I was paraphrasing an economist's reasoning. In their terms the explanation would be that people must enjoy voting, or they are suffering from "limited rationality".

Soldiers are an interesting case because they have more at stake. A hawkish president (vs a dovish one) could greatly increase their chances of dying. So you would expect soldiers to prefer dovish candidates. However, I don't think military voting patterns bear this out.

Not trying to be a jerk but wrong again.

A soldier wants somebody who won't waste his life doing something half thought out.

[Salty]

Yes, I was undecided, I must admit.

I was not happy with either candidate, is why I was undecided.

I even researched the stand of the candidate from the third party.

Earlier this year, I even wondered about not voting, for the first time in 44 years.

However, I consider voting my civic duty. So, I held my nose, made a decision, and voted early.

I'm an unaffiliated registered voter, also known as an 'independent'. I think if all of us in the US of A were like me, then there would be reform, and the politicians would pay us more attention than they give the lobbyists.

But, that will never happen.

[geonuc]

The more interesting question is why anyone votes at all. Economists have been puzzled by this. Suppose you think candidate A's policies suit you best, and let's call the other candidate with a chance of winnng "B". Take your estimated wealth if candidate A wins, subtract your estimated wealth if candidate B wins. Multiply this number by the probability that your vote will decide the election (hard to estimate, but 1e-6 would be very very generous). That is your expected financial gain from voting. Unless you are already a billionaire that gain will be less than a dollar. Do you really value your time so low?
Well, thank the goddess we all don't think like economists, then. I care about more than my own personal wealth. I care about other's wealth and happiness too.

[PraedSt]

Well, thank the goddess we all don't think like economists, then. I care about more than my own personal wealth. I care about other's wealth and happiness too.

Oi! :)
Economists have this covered. This: 'I care about other's wealth and happiness too' is an important motivator, and does indeed increase voter turnout in modern models.
There is also another factor, and that is the act of voting is in itself an important reason why people vote. Civic duty theory. As Logger said earlier (http://www.bautforum.com/1354468-post28.html).
Finally, a significant part of economics is trying to find out what, how and why you think the way you do. Thinking like an economist is not required, or even desirable.

Spoken like an economist. What if you are a soldier? A mother? A priest?

Covered also. The theory deals with perceived benefit. Need not be restricted to monetary benefit.

[BigDon]

Percieved benefit in dollars seems pretty specific to me Praed.

[PraedSt]

Percieved benefit in dollars seems pretty specific to me Praed.

Doesn't have to be dollars BD. It can be sterling, franc, dinars,...

Heh. No, you can use dollars if you want to. Then you would have have to put a value on your life and those of your men (in your example).

But in general you can use any ordering system, as long as your choices can be consistently ranked (amongst other criteria). Sort of we use 'value' colloquially.

To sum up: Expected benefit if your candidate wins + Value of doing your duty by voting > Cost of voting.

[BigDon]

Not trying to be a jerk but wrong again.

A soldier wants somebody who won't waste his life doing something half thought out.

I wanted to explain this a little bit further.

Since we don't have a draft in this country, if survival was the paramount motivator the soldier wouldn't enlist in the first place.

That's not why people become soldiers.

[tdvance]

"Soldiers are an interesting case because they have more at stake. A hawkish president (vs a dovish one) could greatly increase their chances of dying. So you would expect soldiers to prefer dovish candidates. However, I don't think military voting patterns bear this out."

I see BigDon already noted this, but a person motivated this way would stay out of the military. Those left won't likely think that way (except those who had a "change of belief" after enlisting).

[mugaliens]

An interesting thing about soldiers...

The Air Force Times polled all members of the military and you'd be amazed (or perhaps not) at who came out ahead in nearly all sub-populations except one. I was surprised, as I thought soldiers would reflect the national figures fairly well, but nothing could be further from the truth, at least not in this race.

[spacecraftfilms]

What I find most amazing is that the more local the race, the more affect it truly has on your life. If you have neighborhood covenants, those officers are the people that can affect your life the most. From there the city officials are the next most critical, then state, then federal. The President of the United States has the least effect on your day to day life...

So it isn't very logical that Presidential elections have the highest turnout. Oh. Except for one thing. Television.

Now consider this. The best loved Presidents since the invention of television have been those best at it. By far. And the most hated are those worst at it. Not worst at being President. Those worst at Television.

People just don't know how to deal with that box. They actually think it means truth.

[Jeff Root]

[Replying to Mugs' post #38]

I took a quick look through the article. Nothing surprising. They chose the
guy I didn't by about the margin I would have expected. The breakdown
suggests that they chose for the reasons I would have expected. So I'd
say the poll is not news.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[timb]

That members of the US armed forces favor the elephant party over the donkey party has been observed for about as long as polls have been taken. Lately that preference has been weaker, a fact the Military Times poll probably underestimates because
the group surveyed is older, more senior in rank and less ethnically diverse than the overall armed services
also many were retired, I believe.

[EricM407]

An interesting thing about soldiers...

The Air Force Times polled all members of the military

They actually polled their subscribers, which accounts for some of the demographic differences timb mentioned.

[Frog march]

I don't understand this "civic duty to vote" thing. Surely if you are fairly undecided it would be your duty to not vote, so that those who do have an opinion aren't watered down.

[BigDon]

No Frog, because as a voter you have no clue how anybody else is voting. I trust no polls if how "I" respond to them is any indication.

[geonuc]

I don't understand this "civic duty to vote" thing. Surely if you are fairly undecided it would be your duty to not vote, so that those who do have an opinion aren't watered down.
In my mind, the duty is to come to a decision and then vote.

[mugaliens]

In my mind, the duty is to come to a decision and then vote.

Bingo.

I wonder what the effect would be if voting were mandatory...

[Frog march]

then you would have the most expensive binary random number generator in the world.(in a two party state anyway)

[timb]

then you would have the most expensive binary random number generator in the world.(in a two party state anyway)

There is compulsory voting in Australia and the outcomes are far from random.

[Torsten]

1. Can you purposely destroy your ballot?
2. Is the number of destroyed ballots reported?

[ravens_cry]

Every election is decided by one person.
Millions of one persons.
For centuries your ancestors fought for the right to decide the fate of nations, some in the courts, some on the streets, and some on the battlefield, where some paid the ultimate price for this privilege.
Eventually, through the heartbreak and effort of these men and woman of all colours and creeds, it came to be recognized that all peoples are persons, and have the privilege, enthroned as a right, to do just that.
Vote.
What these people did should not be ignored, or worse, forgotten. The apathy I see today as voter turnout grows smaller and smaller saddens me greatly.
Too much work, too much trial, too much sweat has been spilled, just so this great gift can be considered 'meaningless'.
So on electrion day, I don't care who you vote for.
All I ask, all I plead, is simply this.

Vote.

[Jeff Root]

If you don't vote, other people, who actually have some idea what they are
voting for, will choose for you, so you don't have to foul everything up.
If you vote and your candidate loses, your opinion has been rejected, loser!
If you vote and your candidate wins, you will be to blame for what happens.

If you must vote, vote "Yes" for the Mars Invasion Referendum!
We'll explain later whether we are invading them or they are invading us.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[timb]

1. Can you purposely destroy your ballot?
2. Is the number of destroyed ballots reported?

You can wipe your arse with your ballot if you like. Putting it in the ballot box afterwards would probably be a crime, though. Technically it is compulsory to go to the polling station and have your name crossed off a list (or register for a postal ballot etc). The man that crosses your name off the list hands you the ballot paper. You can bin it if you want.

The supposed justification is to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to vote.

[BigDon]

There is compulsory voting in Australia and the outcomes are far from random.

How can you tell? Are you expecting a certain outcome for a reason?

:eh:

[Torsten]

You can wipe your arse with your ballot if you like. Putting it in the ballot box afterwards would probably be a crime, though. Technically it is compulsory to go to the polling station and have your name crossed off a list (or register for a postal ballot etc). The man that crosses your name off the list hands you the ballot paper. You can bin it if you want.

The supposed justification is to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to vote.

The point isn't to be rude about the election process, it is to register your choice. If that choice is that no candidates are considered vote-worthy, and say, 15% of electors cast such a ballot, that sends a signal. That's easily done with paper ballots by leaving them blank, or putting an x through the whole thing.

What interests me is the prevalence of other balloting methods in the US, for example, electronic, or the mechanical one that left dimples and "hanging chads", the rules around reporting the results, and whether it is commonly practiced in US elections.

(I won't be around for the balance of the day to read responses though, and perhaps not for the next few days.)

[mahesh]

Every election is decided by one person.
Millions of one persons.
.....Vote.

:clap: :clap:

wherever one is / belongs to / whichever party / country

[timb]

The point isn't to be rude about the election process, it is to register your choice. If that choice is that no candidates are considered vote-worthy, and say, 15% of electors cast such a ballot, that sends a signal. That's easily done with paper ballots by leaving them blank, or putting an x through the whole thing.

What interests me is the prevalence of other balloting methods in the US, for example, electronic, or the mechanical one that left dimples and "hanging chads", the rules around reporting the results, and whether it is commonly practiced in US elections.

(I won't be around for the balance of the day to read responses though, and perhaps not for the next few days.)

I don't know if there is an established mechanism for making an informal protest vote in US elections. I like systems where there is always an option labelled "No candidate" on the ballot. If that option wins the office remains vacant until the next election.

[BigDon]

Everytime we try to get "none of the above" put on the ballot all the politicos work over time to come up with strawman arguments against it. It never even gets on the ballot to be voted for!

One time, when it was written in such a way that all parties would have to start over with new candidates if "none of the above" won, the hay shortage caused starvation in the local cattle and horses. Sad to see.

[geonuc]

I don't know if there is an established mechanism for making an informal protest vote in US elections. I like systems where there is always an option labelled "No candidate" on the ballot. If that option wins the office remains vacant until the next election.
That doesn't sound like a very good idea to me - most offices actually perform a function in society.

[Salty]

I don't understand this "civic duty to vote" thing. Surely if you are fairly undecided it would be your duty to not vote, so that those who do have an opinion aren't watered down.

I don't follow your logic. To me, the civic duty to vote does not include nor extropolate the "civic duty to not vote". There is no civic duty to not vote, because that's precluded by the civic duty to vote.

FYI, imho there are no informed voters; unless they're retired and on the internet daily for months before an election, eight and more hours a day; researching and tabulating local, county, state and federal politicians voting records and public statements. Then comparing actions to words. That's an informed voter. All others would be uniformed or ill-informed, imho.

Which is to say, that "duty to not vote" and "uninformed voters should not vote" strike me as elitist propaganda to intimidate and inhibit every person's right to vote. Which right may not be infringed nor abridged. Those include intimidation and inhibition, I would think.

ie, "trickle down" includes elitiist propaganda through education system and press unto the common people.

[Frog march]

well if someone doesn't know what to vote, I really don't see the point in them voting.


what is the point?

[Jeff Root]

Salty,

Am I being elitist if I believe that I am incompetent to vote?

I believe that I am incompetent to design a safe bridge because I do
not have the required knowledge or analysis skills.

I believe that I am not competent to choose between most of the
candidates for most of the offices in my area because there are a
godawful lot of them and I have no interest in learning about what
all the issues are and what the pros and cons might be of each of
those multitudinous candidates. If I were to vote for one of them,
it would be practically an act of vandalism. It would be completely
unhelpful to either the democratic system or good governance.

(I count 78 candidates on my ballot, and that's counting the pairs
running for president and vice president as one.)

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[mugaliens]

I don't follow your logic. To me, the civic duty to vote does not include nor extropolate the "civic duty to not vote". There is no civic duty to not vote, because that's precluded by the civic duty to vote.

This should help some people:

Despite my very strong belief in voting (http://www.bautforum.com/off-topic-babbling/80881-vote-2.html#post1357542), from both a statistical and economical perspective, if a person is really torn, because they don't know who the best candidate would be...

...they should decide who the worst candidate might be, and vote for the other one.

And if they're absolutely, positively torn in that area, too, they should vote along party lines, on the justification that there's a reason the voter's party endorsed that candidate, and there's a reason the voter is affiliated with that party. Thus, everything else being equal, this tends to result in a vote being cast whom they would have voted for anyway, had they been able to make a decision.

And if they're not affiliated with any party, then perhaps it's time to pick one.

And if that's not an option, then perhaps it's best to sit back, relax, and start watching Dobie Gillis reruns. Who knows? You may wind up bolting to the polls just so you can write in Maynard G. Krebs.

FYI, imho there are no informed voters; unless they're retired and on the internet daily for months before an election, eight and more hours a day; researching and tabulating local, county, state and federal politicians voting records and public statements. Then comparing actions to words. That's an informed voter. All others would be uniformed or ill-informed, imho.

I agree completely. Unfortunately, all to often many of those people know it, so they skip steps 1 and 2, and jump straight to step 3, where they vote along party lines.

In light of the above, I'm changing my stance. Voting is not one's civic duty. Becoming an informed voter is one's civic duty, only after which should head to the polls to help choose the next leader of the free world.

...

er, um, the US.

Which is to say, that "duty to not vote" and "uninformed voters should not vote" strike me as elitist propaganda to intimidate and inhibit every person's right to vote. Which right may not be infringed nor abridged. Those include intimidation and inhibition, I would think.

ie, "trickle down" includes elitiist propaganda through education system and press unto the common people.

Ok, so let's encourage these uninformed voters to go commit uninformed party-line voting and "because that's what my daddy did"-isms.

When all votes count, I'd rather they count for something more nutritious.

[HenrikOlsen]

Pick someone who you disagree with on basically everything, find out who he votes for, then pick the other option, at least you'll have countered his vote.

Not my idea, got it from Heinlein

[Van Rijn]

I do something close to that with the recommendations of the editorial staff of a local newspaper: I pick my choices, then check it with their recommendations. If they happen to pick the same as I did (uncommon, but it happens) I do more research, because there is very likely a reason why I don't want to agree with them.

[Salty]

Salty,

Am I being elitist if I believe that I am incompetent to vote?

I believe that I am incompetent to design a safe bridge because I do
not have the required knowledge or analysis skills.

I believe that I am not competent to choose between most of the
candidates for most of the offices in my area because there are a
godawful lot of them and I have no interest in learning about what
all the issues are and what the pros and cons might be of each of
those multitudinous candidates. If I were to vote for one of them,
it would be practically an act of vandalism. It would be completely
unhelpful to either the democratic system or good governance.

(I count 78 candidates on my ballot, and that's counting the pairs
running for president and vice president as one.)

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

No, Jeff, that means you've been brainwashed by elitist propaganda. An average voter, like you, if voting, adds to votes which cause random generation. Hey, make your best guess and vote!

[Salty]

This should help some people:

Despite my very strong belief in voting (http://www.bautforum.com/off-topic-babbling/80881-vote-2.html#post1357542), from both a statistical and economical perspective, if a person is really torn, because they don't know who the best candidate would be...

...they should decide who the worst candidate might be, and vote for the other one.

And if they're absolutely, positively torn in that area, too, they should vote along party lines, on the justification that there's a reason the voter's party endorsed that candidate, and there's a reason the voter is affiliated with that party. Thus, everything else being equal, this tends to result in a vote being cast whom they would have voted for anyway, had they been able to make a decision.

And if they're not affiliated with any party, then perhaps it's time to pick one.

And if that's not an option, then perhaps it's best to sit back, relax, and start watching Dobie Gillis reruns. Who knows? You may wind up bolting to the polls just so you can write in Maynard G. Krebs.



I agree completely. Unfortunately, all to often many of those people know it, so they skip steps 1 and 2, and jump straight to step 3, where they vote along party lines.

In light of the above, I'm changing my stance. Voting is not one's civic duty. Becoming an informed voter is one's civic duty, only after which should head to the polls to help choose the next leader of the free world.

...

er, um, the US.



Ok, so let's encourage these uninformed voters to go commit uninformed party-line voting and "because that's what my daddy did"-isms.

When all votes count, I'd rather they count for something more nutritious.

We're agreed.

I was a Republican, nominally, from 1964 to 1988. I voted for the person, regardless of party. When in doubt about which person to vote for, I then voted Republican. After Watergate, Irangate and Contragate, I voted a straight Democraticf ticket from 1988 to 2003. Then, I woke up and went independent. Now, when in doubt about a person, I weigh out all of what the different media say about the candidates, then vote my conscience.