New answers tagged

2

Let's look at the fictitious jungle country of Wellsland. Wellsland has a total population of 5000. This population consists of two ethnicities, the Morlock and the Eloi. There are 1000 Morlock, and 4000 Eloi. There's also two political parties in Wellsland, the Meaties and the Fruities. The parties don't have equal support among the Morlock and the Eloi. ...


0

Both factions are convinced that the majority of right-minded people agree with them, if only they could be persuaded to turn out and vote! It's just that those pesky misguided fools who support the other lot seem to know their way to the polling station rather better! If MORE people voted WE'D win easily!


5

Although there are many good answers already, I feel that one point is still missing. There have been some speech/threat/rumours/... (pick yours) to not recognise the result of the vote. Having a large turnout would reduce the validity of such claims (ok, there could still be discussions on cheating, and so on, but even that would be reduced). For a 30% ...


16

Even if some people don't vote, wouldn't the interests of the nation be properly (statistically) represented by the people who do get out and vote? No. Harvard has (free!) Five Studies on the Causes and Consequences of Voter Turnout. The first one is a study of Australia before and after compulsory voting was implemented. The election results were ...


3

There are three types of people eligible to vote. Loyal beyond grave Such voters go to elections under any circumstance and vote for their party. Populists target people to become like these, as their supporters, of course. Militant trumpists fall there etc. Active voters Critical in their thinking they support more the branch or direction of politics than ...


21

I wrote 40 such letters myself as a volunteer with Vote Forward. I can speak to my own motives: if you want to see Vote Forward's reasoning, their web page has a good explanation. Here's my take: Democracy works better if people vote. I think that my preferred political views are better for people in general than the other party's, and that if everyone ...


8

One of the main features of authoritarianism is that the government's strength is only dependent on a small amount of people. The smaller the amount of people the government relies on to keep its power, the better, because they are more susceptible to influence such as bribery. Take, for example, the case of Bell, California, which voted to become a charter ...


7

A complement to the nice answers already here: If everybody votes, people discontent with the government tend to try to effect change using the vote, and, if they fail, will be convinced to some extent that they had a fair shot and lost because most disagree with them. If nobody votes, people discontent with the government will be more open to effecting ...


4

What is the "interests of the nation"? There is a distinction between "nation" and "country", where nation may refer to people and country to geographical area, though nation is sometimes used to refer to both. The "interests" depend on the people and the geographic and political scope covered. It is axiomatic that the ...


9

Question: Why am I being asked to vote? Short Answer Welcome to the 21st century! There is an old proverb from the late 1990's, if you don't know what product they are pitching; you are the product. If you are interested to learn more, I would recommend Netflix documentary The Social Dilemma! directed by Jeff Orlowski. It handles this topic ...


44

Even if some people don't vote, wouldn't the interests of the nation be properly (statistically) represented by the people who do get out and vote? This might be true if the actual voters are a representative sample of the population as a whole. But in practice, this is not generally the case. In the US, voting demographics are typically quite skewed in ...


112

There are two possible interpretations here, the cynical and the optimistic. Note that I am not naming any specific parties and for the purposes of this answer am not taking any side. The cynical: After looking at the demographics as they apply to you particularly, they've calculated a high chance that if you were to vote you would vote for them, therefore ...


91

A democracy derives its legitimacy from voters. When elections are won by tiny margins, but huge numbers of people don't vote then there is a problem. US turnout is below 60% for presidential elections and has been since the 1960s. If even 1/10th of non voters showed up, they could be decisive in many states. While some organisations trying to drive election ...


-2

People tend to act what they saw during childhood from the community he/she lives in and especially, what they see and hear nowadays. Let's say that you live in Texas, a state with a hard support for Republicans for many years. Chances are, you are a Republican too, but not a radical/extremist one and you plan not to vote this election. Is it absurd to want ...


2

Question: Why do working class people vote for the political right? Answer I would argue they don't. I would argue that neither President Trump nor Prime Minister Boris Johnson are conservative candidates. They are both at their core populist candidates who have a cult of personal followers rather ...


2

It's often done by just putting whatever project you are planning for into a state where it is not easily backed out of. This is spending lock-in, as stated in a comment, also known as sunk costs. For example, the Site C Dam in BC has been under planning and construction for more than 2 decades. The currently elected left-of-center NDP, until recently in a ...


3

In many cases, the policy changes might appear extreme to people living within a country, but to outsiders they appear much less drastic. A common joke in Europe is that "the US has one party, with two rival right wings." This tries to describe that however different the parties might look to a voter, seen from the outside the differences are much ...


-1

We are living in the era of corporatocracy where the corporate class has become the ruling class, as wealth and power have become so concentrated that the interests of working class are ignored or at least controlled. In most western world countries, the corporate class owns and hence controls most if not all media/information and the public is fed a steady ...


1

One way of thinking about the political Left/Right distinction is to see the Left as the home of political idealism and the Right as the home of political pragmatism (within the philosophical context of classical Liberalism). People who are enchanted by new ideas, who want to create a better world, who pull out ideals like fairness, justice, equality, etc., ...


1

It's very simple. Because race, culture wars and Euroscepticism increasingly define how people vote in the UK, rather than economics. The White working-class likes Brexit and is sceptical about some elements of post-modern British social reforms. They feel a loss of national and cultural identity stemming from mass non-White immigration to major British ...


1

Schumpeter was known among other things in political science for defining a democracy to be a system in which the leader is determined in popular elections of a wide franchise (a much shallower but more easily operationalized definition than most political scientists used). The quoted proposition, that you can't call a country a democracy until a government ...


6

[W]hose quote or idea is this? The quote, or at least most of it, appears in, Politics against domination: A conversation with Sterling Professor Ian Shapiro, June 8, 2016 What factors determine whether a democratic system will take hold and survive? You need alternation: what political scientists call the “two turnover rule.” They don’t like to call a ...


0

In Mexico we have our elections usually on the first days of July (not sure what does it depends on, probably is the first Sunday of July), with preliminary results basically that night, and official ones some days later, but the new president takes office until the 1st of December. So it’s almost 5 months later from the day of the elections.


0

In France, L'élection du nouveau président a lieu vingt jours au moins et trente-cinq jours au plus avant l'expiration des pouvoirs du président en exercice. Article 6 de la Constitution The election is held at least twenty days, and at most thirty-five days before the end of the current mandate. In that respect, the US delay is far two to three times ...


2

In Uruguay the president is typically elected the last Sunday of November (unless a candidate gets over 50% on the first round the last Sunday of October), while the inauguration is on March, 1st. That's three or four months plus a few days.


7

Yes, but... It's not actually two-and-a-half months The President is not elected early-November, but mid-December by the Electoral College. This is similar to parliaments who choose a prime minister. As extreme examples, Belgium went 18 months without a PM in 2010. Spain went without a PM for 7 months last year. Practically, the future US President is ...


7

In Germany, the Chancellor is basically in office until a sufficient majority of the parliament elects a successor (it has to be a majority of all members, not just those present and voting). This can happen very quickly, before/without new elections, or it can take a very long time if a coalition has to be formed. (This is a summary, I don't think you want ...


Top 50 recent answers are included