Lack of voting interest.

[The New Left]

Ive been watching the news both in the USA and Canada and when its voting season, all I hear afterword(as long as theres no huge problems i.e. bush vs gore 2000) is that there was a low turn out of voters. What does this mean? Have people lost faith in democracy? Capitalism? Or just think politicians are douches?

[The-Spark]

Maybe they lost faith in change, like in Canada politics isnt so big, i dont hear many people talk about it. Like change is such a rare thing and maybe alotta people have just lost faith in the fact that capitalism isnt progressive at all. So if you vote or not, its still going to be the same, just another scam, more bullshit and no progression.

[Faux Real]

Whichever candidate "wins" won't change their lives for the better so they just ignore it. That or they don't know what politics really is. I hear tons of "I don't think politics is important" day in and day out.

Moreover, if 51% of registered voters don't vote, is that a win for anarchy?

[The-Spark]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 04:56 am
Whichever candidate "wins" won't change their lives for the better so they just ignore it. That or they don't know what politics really is. I hear tons of "I don't think politics is important" day in and day out.

Moreover, if 51% of registered voters don't vote, is that a win for anarchy?
Wouldnt they just see who has the more votes between 49%?

Maybe it is a win for anarchy, or maybe they just dont care anymore, yet still want a leader. i dont know lol

[cenv]

People realize, consciously or not, that the "democratic" state is beyond their control, that "participating" in it just ain't gonna change anything. So they don't bother voting. Simple as that.

[ComradeR]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 05:35 am
People realize, consciously or not, that the "democratic" state is beyond their control, that "participating" in it just ain't gonna change anything. So they don't bother voting. Simple as that.
Exactly, seems people (most likely subconsciously) are realizing that what we have is in fact not a democracy but a plutocratic republic, which really is as far as you can get under capitalism.

[midnight marauder]

I think that low voter turnout can be attributed to a combination of several factors:

1) Low salience: people don't have faith in politicians. People often don't believe that politicians and political parties represent their interests accurately, and they don't believe that their lives are affected by the people in power.

2) Low educatoin: people aren't aware of what views politicians represent, how government works, and don't feel that they know enough about intricacies of political issues to make a valid decision or care about voting.

3) Difficulty voting: more barriers between people and voting mean less people willing to put the effort into going out of there way to vote. This goes double for groups of people who, through voting jurisdictions and other methods, have their ability to vote systematically made to be ineffecient and hard to exercise, such as urban black voters in the United States. Voter turnout is also directly affected by the process of voting: more bureaucratic red tape to go through always translates into a lower likelihood of voting.

As well as personal reasons, of course.

It'd be easy to do so, but I think it'd be ultimately unwise to attribute low voter turnout to an increase in class consciousness. Not that people don't realize that they're getting fucked by the system, they most certainly do, but rather that people don't have a method of putting these ideas into a coherent view of world, i.e. while people have this knowledge, they don't know why the status quo is the way that it is and they aren't aware of a viable alternative to the problems of capitalism and bourgeois democracy.


Moreover, if 51% of registered voters don't vote, is that a win for anarchy?

If only... :ph34r:

[Luís Henrique]

People don't vote because, while they have no faith in individual politicians, they have faith in the system as a whole. Ie, they can't bother to choose one idiot over other, but they are reassured that never mind how much idiotic the idiot who wins is, things won't get significantly worse.

Whenever class struggle gets sharper, electoral absenteism goes down.

And when are we going to learn not to misconstrue the symptoms of our utter frailty into signs of the incoming apocalypse?

Luís Henrique

[Vanguard1917]

People aren't bothering to vote anymore because politicians no longer offer competing political visions to the electorate. The struggle between left and right has gone and nothing has emerged to replace it. This is, i think, connected to Luis's point that electoral turnout increases in times of class struggle.

With class struggle subdued in the West, political labels like 'left' and 'right' have become superfluous. The left-right struggle represented to a large extent the struggle between capital and labour. This struggle was played out to some extent in bourgeois parliaments, with the social democratic parties of the left (or even the powerful official communist parties in places like Italy and France) and the conservative parties of the right trying to appeal to the public through the terms of the cleavages set up by the class struggles taking place in society.

With this left-right political struggle gone elections are increasingly apolitical events, and politicians and political parties struggle to connect with the public. Furthermore, the bulk of the public - the working class - has retreated from political life, and this is merely a reflection of the defeats which it suffered in 1980s, and from which it is yet to recover.

In this sense, declining levels of interest in parliamentary politics and increasing levels of public cynicism towards politics is not necessarily something we should celebrate. It is a symptom of a much deeper problem: the retreat of the working class from politics as a whole.

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by Vanguard1917
Furthermore, the bulk of the public - the working class - has retreated from political life, and this is merely a reflection of the defeats which it suffered in 1980s,

This may be the exact thing in the West, but in India it is the urban lower and middle-working class and the peasants which actively take part in election process - which is looked down by the upper classes and upeer working classes as a useless process. But unfortunately the system works for them not for whom who take part in the process.

The problem here in my observation is lack of co-ordination among the working class and general high cost feature of the political ground. For majority of working class organising in political lines is very much costlier and the level of usage of Lumpen Elements is so high which scares the common citizens. Power earns a lot of money here so politicians don't hesitate to throw around a lot of money - which they see as a good investment with sure returns. The number of MPs and MLAs with criminal charges against them(including murder,rape) will show how rotten the political scenario is.

Also another curse on Indian politics is the damned Caste-often leading to inter caste clashes especially in the rural side.

[cheisgreat]

I think there are a number of reasons for low turnout. Mostly because of a sense of 'hapathy' among voters, voting procedures (especially in the US) is very confusing for your average Joe. People are more 'content' with their lives and don't feel the need to vote. Also because political parties are now concentrating their efforts on being liberal/appealing to the centre, people don't feel they have a real choice- so by not voting they could be protesting or simply feeling left out of the political atmosphere. Moreover, sleaze is a factor too it has been rife since the '80s and this leads to 'turn-off' among potential voters. Why vote for a Republican congressman who promotes family values and is having an affair?

On the other hand you only have to look at the well published elections in France this year. It was a case of left V right. It gave people a clear choice. Male V female. The turnout was 80% or so (sorry I can't remember exactly). I predict that turnout will be higher in the 2008 Presidential elections in the US, we have a black man and a woman leading in the polls. More black people will vote than usual and more women. More diversity in terms of candidates=more diverse voters.

[CornetJoyce]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 06:31 pm


It gave people a clear choice. Male V female. The turnout was 80% or so (sorry I can't remember exactly).

I predict that turnout will be higher in the 2008 Presidential elections in the US, we have a black man and a woman leading in the polls. More black people will vote than usual and more women. More diversity in terms of candidates=more diverse voters.
Black imperialist candidates! Female plutocratic candidates! Now THAT's exciting, My neighborhood is all a-twitter at the prospect!

[Die Neue Zeit]

There seems to be a conflict of reasons in this thread. :huh:

Lack of faith in the system:


Originally posted by ComradeR+--> (ComradeR)Exactly, seems people (most likely subconsciously) are realizing that what we have is in fact not a democracy but a plutocratic republic, which really is as far as you can get under capitalism.[/b]

Vs. faith in the system:


Luis
People don't vote because, while they have no faith in individual politicians, they have faith in the system as a whole. Ie, they can't bother to choose one idiot over other, but they are reassured that never mind how much idiotic the idiot who wins is, things won't get significantly worse.

Whenever class struggle gets sharper, electoral absenteism goes down.

And when are we going to learn not to misconstrue the symptoms of our utter frailty into signs of the incoming apocalypse?

Luís Henrique

Plus, there's the usual tweedle-dum-tweedle-dee explanation about "centrist politics."



My take is that of midnight marauder's: one of lack of faith in both the system (primarily because of more bureaucracy, in spite of all that right-wing rhetoric concerning "cutting red tape") and politicians (whether tweedle-dum-tweedle-dee or "fringe" politicians and their empty rhetoric), as well as low education and difficulties in voting. As was noted about workers' politics, more and more truly believe than the SYSTEM as a whole cannot improve their situation any further.

However, there is an implicit faith in the bureaucracy concerning the "things won't get significantly worse" part, because bureaucrats are indeed people (as opposed to the system).

By the way, Luis, what do you mean by that last question? Those symptoms lead to more "barbarism" (socialism vs. barbarism).

[dannthraxxx]

shit, people just dont care no more. either way it's shitty, as long as they're not being personally affected by what's happenin' they good. s'ides. everyones busy getting high these days.

[Outmoded]

In my opinion, it feels like we really don't have a say in what happens in the country - events out of our hands dictate that.

All we do is hoist a different flag to fly under.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 08:52 pm
By the way, Luis, what do you mean by that last question? Those symptoms lead to more "barbarism" (socialism vs. barbarism).
I mean we should stop inverting reality. I mean we should stop taking evident signs of our weakness as signs of our strength.

Luís Henrique

[Tatarin]

Representative democracy is, in my eyes, a very unjust system. Because it isn't based on the votes of the majority of the people. I mean, how different is the US really? It's not like it consists of 50 different countries each with their own cultures.

If we have 10 states, with 3 people living in each of them, we have a total of 30 people. Now, candidate A wins in 6 states, because 2 of 3 people in each of those states voted for him - 12 people voted for him. But candidate B wins all votes in 4 states, plus 1 vote in the other 6 states. Thus, candidate B has 18 people voting for him. Despite this, according to representative democracy, candidate A wins.

I just can't see the logic in that, and especially not in one single country. It may or may not work on a global scale, or between different cultures if you may...

[The New Left]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 03:07 pm
Representative democracy is, in my eyes, a very unjust system. Because it isn't based on the votes of the majority of the people. I mean, how different is the US really? It's not like it consists of 50 different countries each with their own cultures.

If we have 10 states, with 3 people living in each of them, we have a total of 30 people. Now, candidate A wins in 6 states, because 2 of 3 people in each of those states voted for him - 12 people voted for him. But candidate B wins all votes in 4 states, plus 1 vote in the other 6 states. Thus, candidate B has 18 people voting for him. Despite this, according to representative democracy, candidate A wins.

I just can't see the logic in that, and especially not in one single country. It may or may not work on a global scale, or between different cultures if you may...
Thats how it works in the US, which is bullshit.

The problem with rep. democracy, is that each elected politician has their own agenda, either money or power, but either way, you get both. Its not fair really to the people whom voted for them.