Voting: Always a good idea?
I’m going to vote today just because I would feel guilty if I didn’t. But, it has occurred to me more than once: is it sort of better not to vote if the candidates seem either equally bad or it just doesn’t matter to you who wins? I always feel sort of bad half-randomly picking candidates who seem pretty much the same. Should we always have a good reason who we vote for? If not, is it better not to vote? I feel like it sort of spoils the process if your reasons for picking one person over another are pretty much inconsequential.
That said, if anyone has any really good reasons why any of the candidates in Ward 5 of Somerville, MA are especially good, now would be the time to speak up.
November 9, 2007 at 2:13 am
as an (australian, to declare what might be my biases) supporter of compulsory voting, i would say that it is better to vote even if you don’t have a good reason or really know what you’re doing. but that’s because i think we need as many people to vote as possible for democracy to work. i guess if you go on the assumption that voting is optional, maybe you come to different conclusions? but if it was optional i’d be campaigning for it to be compulsory, so i’d still argue that you should vote regardless.
(hi, by the way - i think i left a note here ages ago when i first found your journal, don’t know if you saw it though.)
November 13, 2007 at 5:45 pm
I think these situations are a good reason not to institute Australia-style compulsory voting. Democracy works based on *meaningful citizen choices,* not *ticking boxes.* If I make it to election day without having learned enough to have an opinion as to which candidate is better, it strikes me as irresponsible to give one of them a vote anyway, thereby dilutinng the votes of the people who do have a real preference. As for situations where you know about the candidates and they’re both just as bad, I would support a “none of the above” option that would trigger a re-election with all new candidates if it won.