On What Would Happen If Everyone Voted
I saw this advertisement (from Starbucks) on Facebook for an "event". But I thought it interesting because I cannot fathom what answer people expect to get, and yet this question -- or the thought that motivates it -- seems extremely prevalent in this country.
What would happen if everybody voted?
You know, I don't think anything different would occur at all -- except for longer lines and more anger at the polls.
It seems to be almost blasphemous in this country if you tell someone that you are not going to vote. People don't seem to except that a person might not want to vote for either candidate, that not voting can, in part, be thought of as a vote for "none of the above."
Why is this?
It would seem more logical to me, if people encouraged others to vote for their chosen candidate, but I oddly hear a lot of my most politically active friends who are gung-ho for a given candidate say, "I don't care whom you vote for, but vote!" How does this benefit anyone?
Is it because we want our nation to be unified?
That's never going to happen.
If the reason (which is often accused) people don't vote is because they are lazy and all these lazy people voted, do you really think we would have a more unified answer? Do you really think Democrats are more lazy than Republicans and vice versa? On the contrary, I think that laziness is a more fundamentally human vice, not falling along party lines.
If the reason people don't vote is because they don't like the options, how is voting going to change anything? Even if the people not voting voted, one of the major candidates would still most likely win. So all those people desiring more options wouldn't have gotten their wish anyhow.
And I don't see how voting third party sends any big message. Yes, it sends a message, but who is listening? And what can or will those who are listening do? Is whoever wins the election going to say, "Gee, a lot of votes went to a third party, I'm going to enact laws to change the voting system that allows the voters to rank candidates or maybe I should restore a true electoral college instead of this fake joke we still call an electoral college"? I don't find that likely. The republicans and democrats do not want more parties in government; they like being in power. In the past, folks such as Pero (How do you spell his name?) did take a lot of votes. Did that change anything? Not at all. Third party candidates were not even invited to the debates this year.
And if people do not vote, why can't that send the same message? Why doesn't someone in power see this and say, "Only 10% of this country voted for me; should I really be in power?" Again, the answer is the same: the ones in power like the power. So not voting and voting third party are somewhat similar options in the end. (Although read dogs_n_rodents' comment below.)
And then we have the predictions from social psychology. It has been shown again and again in study after study that people fool themselves more often than not into thinking they have good reasons for voting the way they do. On the contrary, most people vote based on gut instincts and subconscious indicators rather than logical reasoning; it is only after they have chosen a candidate that they search for logical reasons to convince themselves and others of their choice.[1]
And this returns us to the crux of the matter -- democracy. Do we really want everyone voting -- especially when we know scientifically that most people are not even making rational decisions? How is such democracy a good thing? I've said it before and I'll say it again -- I did not say it first -- democracy is tyranny of the majority.[2] How is that better?
aefenglommung once said, "Americans have the right to vote, which includes the right to NOT vote. Once it becomes a responsibility, like paying your taxes, the quality of voting goes down." I think he has a point. You may recall that I have taken issue recently with "tests" to verify the quality of voters.[3] You should note that my issue was with the tests themselves not with the idea of limited sufferage.
I don't want everyone to vote -- not remotely; I only want those to vote who actually understand the political system and can truly make a good judgment.
Edited due to a confusing line of thought.