Why would a higher turnup in elections result in a better democracy?

I think higher voter turnout is indicative of voter engagement in the issues. What creates better democracy is voter dialog with their elected representatives. Those who are elected are accountable to those who sent them there. If no one holds them accountable, then they serve those who do talk to them

@Vincentt: “Call me elitist, but more people voting isn’t by definition better when people don’t know what’s good for them, right?”

You’re an elitist.

Everyone who votes, votes in the manner that reflects their values and concerns. Your statement suggests that certain values are unimportant and others are. Yes, the campaigns abound with malicious, faulty rumors by all players. And the people who believe these falsities range from the poor, uneducated to the educated political and coporate powers that be.

Most of those who do not vote simply don’t believe it matters, that they will be the ultimate loser regardless of the outcome.

Large voter turnout doesn’t necessarily result in better government; the majority can make bad choices. But it does result in better democracy in that democracy is based on the presumption that citizens will tend to vote according to what they perceive as being in their best interests and highest priorities, so that the election results will tend to reflect the interests and priorities of the majority of citizens. This can only happen when as many as possible are heard.

The interests and priorities of those who don’t vote aren’t accounted for in the results, which will make those results less representative of the nation as a whole. To take an example, I’m very much in favor of allowing gay marriage, and I think that prohibiting it is bad government. While that cause might be advanced by having all religious fundamentalists stay home on election day, I recognize that the cause of democracy would suffer.

Part of the social contract that comes with living in a democracy is acceptance of the fact that at times the individual’s priorities will come into conflict with those of the majority, but that we value democracy above personal agendas.

@AF – so the idea is more “if it goes wrong, at least it’s the people’s own fault”. Hmm, sounds reasonable on first sight, but I’m not quite sure what I think of that yet…

@jvgr:

“Your statement suggests that certain values are unimportant and others are.”

That’s not what I meant. What I meant was that people casting a vote without reason are not good for democracy.

Of course, I’m not saying it’s good that people don’t vote because they think it won’t matter, I’m saying it’s a Bad Thing that people vote for stuff they might not actually agree with if they thought about it (i.e. it doesn’t really reflect their opinion). That’s not “the people’s will”, is it?

@Harp:

“it does result in better democracy in that democracy is based on the presumption that citizens will tend to vote according to what the perceive as being in their best interests and highest priorities”

Sure, but isn’t that presumption wrong, in some cases? When someone votes for something else than what they actually believe, doesn’t that also mean that that person’s opinion isn’t accounted for in the results? (In fact, quite the opposite would happen)

@Vincentt: “What I meant was that people casting a vote without reason are not good for democracy.”

No one votes without reason; even if we don’t prefer their reasons.

Good question. Theoretically, democracy functions best when everyone participates… but what happens if 80% of people voting are morons?

The onus falls back on our broken educational system. Start teaching kids critical thinking and reasoning skills, expose them to all viewpoints, and let them come to their own way of thinking.

@Vincentt
If you were to remove the “tends to” from that statement, the presumption would often be wrong because particular voters can, and do, unwittingly vote contrary to their values and interests. But the tendency is, I believe, still valid.

We might have better turnout if we had something other than turnips to vote for! Whatever the outcome of this election, we are screwed, IMO.

@jvgr – OK, let’s say “without arguments”. A vote like “oh, that person has pretty blue eyes, lets vote for him/her”. How’s that good for democracy?

@Harp – fair enough. Still frustrating that one person’s carefully considered vote might be matched by a vote like the one described above.

@scamp – I wasn’t referring to American elections per se, just democracies in general. And, more specifically, why my government always tries to get turnout to be high – which I think I understand now (though I like continuing this dicussion ;-).

The problem in the US, is, that you only have two bad options to (practically!) choose from. There are some morons in the Netherlands as well (well, two, at least, IMHO), and some people consider them all bad, but mostly some are worse than others, so you can at least cast a vote to the least bad option to reduce the power the extremely dumb parties have.

@Vincentt: “OK, let’s say “without arguments”. A vote like “oh, that person has pretty blue eyes, lets vote for him/her”. How’s that good for democracy?”

First I have to clarify a statement by Harp. No one votes against their values, but many vote against their economic interests.

Democracy means free to choose. That’s all. It doesn’t mean that you have to choose based on any criteria other than that which you create. It wouldn’t be democracy otherwise.

People will vote for McCain because he, against his original position, crawled back to the right wing base of christian fundamentalists, not because of his overall principles (whatever they may be now).

People will vote for or against Obama because he is black and/or has an “Islamic” sounding name.

So in a democracy, you have to allow people the right to choose regardless of their criteria, otherwise it isn’t a democracy.

No, a higher turnout wouldn’t result in a better democracy, because choice not only means which candidate do you want to support, but you can choose not to vote; that too is democratic even if it is a wasted opportunity.

I’m reading an article and just read an interview between a rural Ohio farmer and the writer. The farmer is fed up and doesn’t like either candidate, so he is deciding not to vote in order to “make his voice heard”. There is a curious logic to that thinking, though it would be more of a statement if he voted for a third party candidate (if he liked any)

OK, so if democracy is just about allowing people to choose, then my question would be “why would unreasoned choices result in a better government?”

Un“reasoned” choices have resulted in the exceptionally bad government we have right now.

So my question would be, how can our country encourage people
to vote their own interests (see jvgr above, “No one votes against their values, but many
vote against their own economic interests.” I’m actually an example of this: I’m a trust-fund baby who’s a radical Democrat and finds Obama too corporation-friendly for
my taste. The “opposite” example of values-over-interests voting are people living on very little who nevertheless vote for the pro-big-business candidate because they’ve bought the myth that soon they, too, will somehow achieve a place at the trough. I call
this “lottery economics”. The “value” expressed here is the value of magic. It’s childish,
but it’s strong.

@jvgr
I think voters do unwittingly vote against their values. Most Bush supporters thought they were voting for fiscal restraint, national security and respect for life. They got the opposite on all counts

When I read your questions I thought you were talking about soup! I wondered if high altitude turnup’s tasted better than low altitude turnips.

judi ha ha me too.

@susanc – heh, I don’t think we have that bad a government atm, even if it’s not what I voted for (I wasn’t even allowed to vote). But then, I probably don’t live in your country ;-)

It’s an interesting question though: how can a democracy encourage people to vote for their values?

Note that I used values, not economic interests – I don’t see voting against your economic interests to be a bad thing. I like the idea of solidarity, though it probably means that there will be less for me and more for people in need (and also some for people that don’t actually need it). Against my economic interests, but good for my moral wellbeing ;-)