Why is low voting turn out a good thing?

Question

Logical reasoning is helpful

Answer 1

The people that don't vote also don't take the time to learn the issues and how the candidates stand on the issues. While there are also a lot of people that do vote that don't know the issues, it would be much worst if everyone voted. In this way, I believe it is a good thing we have lower voter turnout.

On the other hand, if more people would take the little amount of time it takes to learn about the candidates and the issues, and got out to vote, our elected officials would be more a representative of their district than we have now. If a district has 200,000 people, but only half get out and vote (100,000 people), and the candidate that wins gets 60% of the votes (60,000), that leaves 140,000 people that are not being represented in the government. But if everyone voted and the winning candidate got 60% of the votes, they would be representing 120,000 people and only 80,000 people would be unrepresented.

Answer 2

Low voter turn out is not a good thing. Right now many voters do not vote be case they do not see a difference between the two parties. Yes they have different methods of achieving the same goal but they are fighting for the same goal.

There was a time when one party opposed an idea and the other party supported idea.

Answer 3

The apologist answer is that a strong economy and a happy nation means that people don't need to use their vote - if people don't vote, it means (is conveniently assumed by those gaining advantage from the current system) that things are fine.

In Russia democracy is in a bad way, but (it is reported) people are happy because the economy is doing well and their standard of living is better. However, the recent murders of dissidents Alexander Litvinenko and Anna Politkovskaya point to a system that is mired in corruption. The strong economy is a way of paying people off to ignore political corruption. Politically and economically we are living in a corrupt, violent, greedy, scary world. The rigging of elections is rife - the Bush elections the prime examples. The Iraq war was based on lies. David Kelly, the British government official who blew the whistle, 'committed suicide'. The mainstream media is owned by corporations and banks and don't tell the truth about the vested interests that drive it. The vote is worthless because it is undermined. It's easier just to ignore politics and use the money to buy a computer to play games on rather than engage with real life. This is what the people in power want - to buy people with bread and circuses. Simply put, in the way they operate in today's political economy, money has more power than the vote. Every time money is used, it is a vote for the thing it is given to and for money itself. With the marketisation of politics through privatisation and the third way, the vote has been usurped by the power of money - campaign funding and the cash for peerages scandal are only a few symptoms of this.

The only way forward is an organised grassroots uprising that operates through its own democracy. This happened before at the end of the English Civil War, when the New Model Army, with no representation in Parliament to protest against their lack of pay, created their own representative democracy and General Council within their ranks, and with it marched to London. Unless a large scale unitarian democratic movement with a coherent vision arises, we might as well spoil our votes - they have to count spoiled votes and announce their number. Perhaps this will give us an idea of what we think of how things are.

If you care about the human spirit, you will be concerned. If all you are concerned about with regard to politics is how much money you have in the bank, things are great - if you're rich.

Answer 4

Voter turn out being low is what the incumbents want during an election. If voter turn out is low there is a better chance that those voting will "go with the flow". During a presidential election low voter turn out means that the Electoral College can pick anyone that they want with less repercussions from the public. If numbers are low who is going to argue with the result? After all if you don't vote your argument is baseless and unfounded.

The only thing low voter turn out is good for is long time politicians.

Answer 5

I gave nearly all the previous answers a 'thumbs down'. We make voting extremely easy in the US. If you are not motivated enough to vote, you aren't motivated enough to know what you are voting on anyway. I have worked at the polls for 3 years. I've seem quite a few people who do show up to vote that have no idea what they are voting for. If the major political parties did not supply 'voting guides' many current voters would not know what to do.

Answer 6

It demonstrates that few people actually care enough to vote, and so if they are the only ones who can bothered to cast their vote come election day then they must have some interest and knowledge into the subject.

Answer 7

Low voting helps the fascists to continue to control the government. (because only their fascists voters are going to the polls)

The fascists lost because real Americans went to the polls this time.

Answer 8

Actually it isn't a good thing at all. If you don't vote you don't have a voice in government and you don't have a right to complain about what our government does.

Answer 9

Because it helps out the conservatives because elections are not won by a majority. It is called the Goo Goo Syndrome. Jerry Falwell will tell you all about it.

Answer 10

It's good for the social regressives because they always vote!