Why should I bother voting? I live in a solid Blue (or Red) state
October 14, 2024 7:34 AM
This is what I hear from some folks. They feel that since the results are forgone in their district, there is no value in casting a vote at all. While I may agree with them, that their 1 vote may not move the overall needle, and I pushback on the grounds of responsibility, there is a missing factor I don't understand, and can't explain very well.
Does not the overall nos. from any district give that area, its reps, leverage in obtaining federal services and funds? And so, increasing the voter pool benefits their neighborhood? Is that just from being a bigger player? With added weight?
Does not the overall nos. from any district give that area, its reps, leverage in obtaining federal services and funds? And so, increasing the voter pool benefits their neighborhood? Is that just from being a bigger player? With added weight?
Vote for the down ballot stuff: there's probably "non-party" positions -- judges, school boards, sheriffs -- that aren't super clear on the candidate's positions, but bad actors are using these to get into positions of power. A couple years ago I had to be verrry careful on the school board election because there were 3 positions open and like 15 candidates and at least three candidates were Qanon, "kids identify as cats and poop in boxes" , conspiracy-theory assholes. And absolutely watch the candidates for judges due to the power they wield. They're counting on rabid supporters, and a bunch of accidental votes because of a half-remembered TV spot, and a bunch of people not voting because they think they're in a safely blue district, being enough to get them in by a sliver of a couple dozen votes.
And, as long as you're there, vote for president too.
posted by AzraelBrown at 7:43 AM on October 14
And, as long as you're there, vote for president too.
posted by AzraelBrown at 7:43 AM on October 14
There are different ethical systems, but one is "make the choice that you would have others make." If you subscribe to that form of ethics, then staying home violates your ethics, since you're relying on other people to cast your vote, in effect. Perhaps this is the missing factor?
Of course, we all compromise on our ethics due to conflicting priorities, and perhaps for some people, staying home to watch The Golden Bachelorette is a higher priority.
Plus, on a practical level, there are all those downballot races. And just looking at the presidency (which is apparently what these folks are doing), if you think the Electoral College is bullshit, then you want every vote on the record, even in safe states, to shine a light on the fact that it is bullshit.
posted by adamrice at 7:54 AM on October 14
Of course, we all compromise on our ethics due to conflicting priorities, and perhaps for some people, staying home to watch The Golden Bachelorette is a higher priority.
Plus, on a practical level, there are all those downballot races. And just looking at the presidency (which is apparently what these folks are doing), if you think the Electoral College is bullshit, then you want every vote on the record, even in safe states, to shine a light on the fact that it is bullshit.
posted by adamrice at 7:54 AM on October 14
NYC's total fucking clown of a mayor ended up winning the primary by ~7,000 votes, which has meant relentless misery for a lot of vulnerable people here, not to mention our coffers being raided to send people's cousins to Japan first class. It would have been nice if a few more people had shown up to vote against said clown.
That said, one's individual vote may, in some circumstances, not make that much of a difference. But if they're not doing that, what are they doing? Like, I would respect a person who refused to vote because they thought it was irrelevant but spent a lot of time lobbying for more funds to the local supervised injection site. But for most people who say this sort of thing, what they're really saying is: I'm kind of a lazy bum who doesn't want to take basic responsibility for my own self-governance.
posted by praemunire at 7:55 AM on October 14
That said, one's individual vote may, in some circumstances, not make that much of a difference. But if they're not doing that, what are they doing? Like, I would respect a person who refused to vote because they thought it was irrelevant but spent a lot of time lobbying for more funds to the local supervised injection site. But for most people who say this sort of thing, what they're really saying is: I'm kind of a lazy bum who doesn't want to take basic responsibility for my own self-governance.
posted by praemunire at 7:55 AM on October 14
You vote for more than just the President. (The "comma dumbass" is heavily implied in my tone.)
I'm in Chicago, Chicago is very blue, but the individual neighborhoods are blue or only blue-ish in meaningfully different ways. If my neighbors' votes didn't matter, we'd probably still have some white guy as our rep instead of Chuy Garcia, and the Latino caucus in our city counsel wouldn't exist. The only reason the demographically shifting brown belt has representation is because people have been voting for it.
Abortion is safe in my state, but this season I get to vote again on another attempt at a progressive tax measure. And, of course, I get to vote no on any judges who don't pass the vibe check.
posted by phunniemee at 7:55 AM on October 14
I'm in Chicago, Chicago is very blue, but the individual neighborhoods are blue or only blue-ish in meaningfully different ways. If my neighbors' votes didn't matter, we'd probably still have some white guy as our rep instead of Chuy Garcia, and the Latino caucus in our city counsel wouldn't exist. The only reason the demographically shifting brown belt has representation is because people have been voting for it.
Abortion is safe in my state, but this season I get to vote again on another attempt at a progressive tax measure. And, of course, I get to vote no on any judges who don't pass the vibe check.
posted by phunniemee at 7:55 AM on October 14
I live in a red state that's so solidly red that the DNC cares not at all about doing much of anything here. (My county, however, is pretty solidly blue.) My presidential vote really doesn't matter as the three big metros will vote blue and get shouted down by the rest of the state. I still vote because there's always something else that's local that my vote actually does count for. Sure, there's a presidential vote to be had but more importantly (and more effectively) here there's also a Senator vote and two US House votes and a bunch of TN House and Senate votes too. Those are very impactful things to vote for, in that I'll see what comes of those offices from my front yard, more or less.
More importantly, I try to vote in every election - people show up for the presidential ones but not the others. (In 2020, we had ~385k voters for the presidential, but the last election here in August 2024 only saw ~77k votes cast, which decided who our circuit court clerk was and a few other things.)
Plus it feels nice to say I did the right thing according to my moral compass. I didn't stand around. And maybe one day the tide will turn - but it (probably) won't until people see more people voting in a particular manner, and you're helping with that too.
posted by mrg at 8:00 AM on October 14
More importantly, I try to vote in every election - people show up for the presidential ones but not the others. (In 2020, we had ~385k voters for the presidential, but the last election here in August 2024 only saw ~77k votes cast, which decided who our circuit court clerk was and a few other things.)
Plus it feels nice to say I did the right thing according to my moral compass. I didn't stand around. And maybe one day the tide will turn - but it (probably) won't until people see more people voting in a particular manner, and you're helping with that too.
posted by mrg at 8:00 AM on October 14
My petulant self says, “well I can’t complain later if I didn’t at least voice my opinion now (and I want to be able to complain).”
posted by raccoon409 at 8:11 AM on October 14
posted by raccoon409 at 8:11 AM on October 14
More subtle, but arguably as important, is that the more people who vote, the more the politicians are reminded that they're accountable and their constituents are watching.
posted by DrGail at 8:13 AM on October 14
posted by DrGail at 8:13 AM on October 14
If people don't vote, it gets easier to roll back voting rights. I mean, vote for Mickey Mouse, vote for the antichrist, whatever (and vote downballot). If we're going to have voting and it's going to be useful in any way at all, we want everyone to be able to vote easily (even if some people have philosophical reasons not to vote - I'm not talking about compulsory voting). If most people were to vote, politicians would be afraid to fuck with voting access.
posted by Frowner at 8:16 AM on October 14
posted by Frowner at 8:16 AM on October 14
The number of voters is not used to allocate public funding, no. Census numbers are used to show population sizes and demographics.
Down ballot races are important, though, in getting the person in power who will fight for the local services you want. And that person is generally more likely to be the mayor, or on the Board of Supervisors, or otherwise much more local to the voter. Presidential races are obviously important but we've created a belief that they are the only important thing, and I think people don't then understand how the various branches and jurisdictional levels of government work or why that's important to know.
posted by lapis at 8:23 AM on October 14
Down ballot races are important, though, in getting the person in power who will fight for the local services you want. And that person is generally more likely to be the mayor, or on the Board of Supervisors, or otherwise much more local to the voter. Presidential races are obviously important but we've created a belief that they are the only important thing, and I think people don't then understand how the various branches and jurisdictional levels of government work or why that's important to know.
posted by lapis at 8:23 AM on October 14
Does not the overall nos. from any district give that area, its reps, leverage in obtaining federal services and funds?
It does not. I wonder if you're thinking about Census response?
posted by GCU Sweet and Full of Grace at 8:24 AM on October 14
It does not. I wonder if you're thinking about Census response?
posted by GCU Sweet and Full of Grace at 8:24 AM on October 14
“Solid Blue” is nowhere near where it ought to be, in terms of social justice and community support and accountability. I vote in Seattle and the fact is that we can’t get local politicians here who, for example, see our houseless neighbors as people. But they sure are registered with the Democratic Party! Every once in a while though there is somebody who actually overlaps with my personal ethics running for a local position, and every once in a while they win, gain experience, and run for a position with more responsibility or reach.
If I don’t vote, and if people like me don’t vote - people who only feel comfortable living in a solidly Blue city - then Blue will shift to Purple (tbh this is where we are now) and the opportunities to push back will decrease.
posted by Mizu at 8:47 AM on October 14
If I don’t vote, and if people like me don’t vote - people who only feel comfortable living in a solidly Blue city - then Blue will shift to Purple (tbh this is where we are now) and the opportunities to push back will decrease.
posted by Mizu at 8:47 AM on October 14
If there's a Board of Education race on the ballot, voters need to show up and keep extremists out of power. They're sneaking in everywhere, including solid blue areas.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 8:49 AM on October 14
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 8:49 AM on October 14
The folks you are talking to are correct that if you only follow US congressional races and the presidential contest, then sure, it certainly can seem like individual voters in tight races may feel more powerful and important in each election than, say, a Republican in Boston (or, to offer some non-US voting system examples of losing parties from this year’s elections so far, an SPD voter in rural Thuringia in Germany, a PAN voter basically anywhere in Mexico, or an EFF voter in Western Cape, South Africa). Voters like to feel they’ve won and that society more widely endorses their views, and to never be on the winning side of races like that can indeed drive despair and disengagement.
I think that way of thinking breaks down, though, in all the non-partisan races and ballot measures/initiatives US elections offer voters. Where I live, an incumbent and effective school board member is fighting a tight race against a book-banning anti-LGBTQ+ candidate whose values dramatically differ from most school district residents, but who also has zillions of yard signs stuck at intersections. I wonder to what extent the people you are hearing this desire to disengage from voting from feel as if there really is no meaningful way to influence the outcome of elections like the one I describe because they have never participated in the volunteering side of things. It will take work for the incumbent in this race to keep their seat, and it really is just normal folks who are doing that work.
Also, do these people write to their representatives? If not, they are missing out on a key influence they have between elections, which is elbowing their way into their elected officials’ schedule and agenda by making them take the time to record their views and have to schedule their staff and time to respond. For example, senators like Bernie Sanders and Markwayne Mullin or representatives like Cori Bush and Matt Gaetz might be totally opposed to each other on many if not all issues, but both absolutely have staff who open constituent letters, index those writers’ views in ways that help the elected official shape their statements and opinions, and ultimately walk a tightrope of balancing donors and constituents in an effort to keep their seat.
Finally, in your position I might want to examine my own reasons for voting and share them with these folks. I’ve spent the last month writing letters to voters through Vote Forward and found that explaining to others why I vote was a clarifying exercise that tapped into some deep themes in my life:
- It’s important to me that the disenfranchised — like the 22% of Americans under 18! — are considered when elected officials are drafting legislation
- I want candidates who win and lose to see that at least some voters in my precinct/district think the way I do and shape their legislative work or next campaign to reflect this
- The vast majority of individual citizens want the same things, at least in a broad-brush sense, like affordable housing, good schools and clean air, but the people we elect to local, state or national office in particular are quite different from normal people in that they may be willing to sacrifice those apparently-universal desires for the sake of their personal ambitions; voting makes them aware of how far they can deviate from what this shared consensus is without losing their seat.
posted by mdonley at 8:52 AM on October 14
I think that way of thinking breaks down, though, in all the non-partisan races and ballot measures/initiatives US elections offer voters. Where I live, an incumbent and effective school board member is fighting a tight race against a book-banning anti-LGBTQ+ candidate whose values dramatically differ from most school district residents, but who also has zillions of yard signs stuck at intersections. I wonder to what extent the people you are hearing this desire to disengage from voting from feel as if there really is no meaningful way to influence the outcome of elections like the one I describe because they have never participated in the volunteering side of things. It will take work for the incumbent in this race to keep their seat, and it really is just normal folks who are doing that work.
Also, do these people write to their representatives? If not, they are missing out on a key influence they have between elections, which is elbowing their way into their elected officials’ schedule and agenda by making them take the time to record their views and have to schedule their staff and time to respond. For example, senators like Bernie Sanders and Markwayne Mullin or representatives like Cori Bush and Matt Gaetz might be totally opposed to each other on many if not all issues, but both absolutely have staff who open constituent letters, index those writers’ views in ways that help the elected official shape their statements and opinions, and ultimately walk a tightrope of balancing donors and constituents in an effort to keep their seat.
Finally, in your position I might want to examine my own reasons for voting and share them with these folks. I’ve spent the last month writing letters to voters through Vote Forward and found that explaining to others why I vote was a clarifying exercise that tapped into some deep themes in my life:
- It’s important to me that the disenfranchised — like the 22% of Americans under 18! — are considered when elected officials are drafting legislation
- I want candidates who win and lose to see that at least some voters in my precinct/district think the way I do and shape their legislative work or next campaign to reflect this
- The vast majority of individual citizens want the same things, at least in a broad-brush sense, like affordable housing, good schools and clean air, but the people we elect to local, state or national office in particular are quite different from normal people in that they may be willing to sacrifice those apparently-universal desires for the sake of their personal ambitions; voting makes them aware of how far they can deviate from what this shared consensus is without losing their seat.
posted by mdonley at 8:52 AM on October 14
I always say that a very large number of people have sacrificed and/or died to protect our freedoms, voting being one of the most important. I do not want to disrespect their sacrifices.
And as pointed out above, local elections and approvals for bonds or other "questions" are also worth voting on (especially if you educate yourself first). Personally, I am looking forward (perhaps unrealistically) to voting for the Constitutional Amendment to destroy the Electoral College. And I am looking forward to having a female President.
posted by forthright at 9:16 AM on October 14
And as pointed out above, local elections and approvals for bonds or other "questions" are also worth voting on (especially if you educate yourself first). Personally, I am looking forward (perhaps unrealistically) to voting for the Constitutional Amendment to destroy the Electoral College. And I am looking forward to having a female President.
posted by forthright at 9:16 AM on October 14
They should vote because the more decisive an election is, the less viable election challenges and attempts to foment election violence will be.
posted by baseballpajamas at 9:17 AM on October 14
posted by baseballpajamas at 9:17 AM on October 14
Every state is purple.
I live in a deeply red state now, but we've had Democratic governors within my lifetme. We were once more purple than we are, and have just drifted into more red territory over time due to shifting population. Apart from the downballot issues, which have been covered well, one reason I vote is to demonstrate that this state isn't solid red. I want the Democratic Party to know there are people worth reaching out to here. And speaking as someone who lives here, it's nice to know that not everyone is voting for the fascists.
My state is not realistically going to surprise anyone this year, but I just don't see how not voting does anything to help that situation. Voting itself is (for me at least) only a minor hassle that takes about ten minutes, not including research - one nice thing about living in a red state is the voter suppression hasn't been a top priority.
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 9:34 AM on October 14
I live in a deeply red state now, but we've had Democratic governors within my lifetme. We were once more purple than we are, and have just drifted into more red territory over time due to shifting population. Apart from the downballot issues, which have been covered well, one reason I vote is to demonstrate that this state isn't solid red. I want the Democratic Party to know there are people worth reaching out to here. And speaking as someone who lives here, it's nice to know that not everyone is voting for the fascists.
My state is not realistically going to surprise anyone this year, but I just don't see how not voting does anything to help that situation. Voting itself is (for me at least) only a minor hassle that takes about ten minutes, not including research - one nice thing about living in a red state is the voter suppression hasn't been a top priority.
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 9:34 AM on October 14
My state gives major party status to any party that gets at least 5 percent of the vote in the last statewide election. Major party status gives them a lot of advantages that other parties don't get, including the ability to get campaign subsidies from the box people can check on their state income tax returns.
Third parties are sometimes a good thing and sometimes not*, but your vote affects the percentages either way.
*we had two "legalization" parties that were just there to shave off Dem votes. Dems got cannabis legalized and now those parties lost their status.
posted by soelo at 10:03 AM on October 14
Third parties are sometimes a good thing and sometimes not*, but your vote affects the percentages either way.
*we had two "legalization" parties that were just there to shave off Dem votes. Dems got cannabis legalized and now those parties lost their status.
posted by soelo at 10:03 AM on October 14
There are a lot of excellent reasons to vote posted above.
I'll add that people have fought and died for voting rights.
posted by jgirl at 10:09 AM on October 14
I'll add that people have fought and died for voting rights.
posted by jgirl at 10:09 AM on October 14
I'm not going to say presidential and senate races aren't of consequence, but I do understand why they seem less important in a blue state. But local, county, and state elections are hugely consequential and impact our lives a great deal, on a daily basis. And the local folks become the county folks become the state folks who run for federal office.
I wrinkle my nose at federal election options but engage highly in local elections, where I get to vote for folks who are much more aligned with my values.
posted by bluedaisy at 10:13 AM on October 14
I wrinkle my nose at federal election options but engage highly in local elections, where I get to vote for folks who are much more aligned with my values.
posted by bluedaisy at 10:13 AM on October 14
I ask myself, if everyone acted in this way would this system still work? If every person in a blue / red state did not vote because their vote would not make a difference, then the system would not work, there would be no votes.
posted by RoadScholar at 10:14 AM on October 14
posted by RoadScholar at 10:14 AM on October 14
Blue states are blue (and red states red) because thousands/millions of voters do the thing. We put on our shoes, leave the house, walk or drive to the polls, and check some boxes (or mail in their ballot, whatever). Some people do a lot of research, others just vote on vibes, but they made at least the minimum effort. It’s not magic, it’s not NPCs, it’s real people with real lives faced with the same choices you are, and it fucking pisses me off that some people are willing to just… let others carry that burden.
posted by misskaz at 10:14 AM on October 14
posted by misskaz at 10:14 AM on October 14
Does not the overall nos. from any district give that area, its reps, leverage in obtaining federal services and funds?
Others have pointed out that this is based on the census. However, what is true is that politicians pay attention to voting rates within different demographic blocks. The fact that they generally give greater priorities to the opinions of voters 65 years and older vs. those under 30, is that the former vote at higher rates. So a pitch I generally give to college students in my classrooms is, if you want politicians to take the interests of young people more seriously, you need to vote. This of course could be true for any demographic, provided that it's counted (i.e. the fact that Arab voters are classified as "white" in the Census).
posted by coffeecat at 10:16 AM on October 14
Others have pointed out that this is based on the census. However, what is true is that politicians pay attention to voting rates within different demographic blocks. The fact that they generally give greater priorities to the opinions of voters 65 years and older vs. those under 30, is that the former vote at higher rates. So a pitch I generally give to college students in my classrooms is, if you want politicians to take the interests of young people more seriously, you need to vote. This of course could be true for any demographic, provided that it's counted (i.e. the fact that Arab voters are classified as "white" in the Census).
posted by coffeecat at 10:16 AM on October 14
Does not the overall nos. from any district give that area, its reps, leverage in obtaining federal services and funds? And so, increasing the voter pool benefits their neighborhood?
Arguably the opposite. If there's a gap between how many eligible potential voters there are and how many vote, or how many register and then don't return ballots, the various pollsters and political operatives who make it their business to care about this sort of thing take notice, and may either try to appeal and tap into an latent segment of the vote or keep the status quo if they have reason to believe that segment of potential voters would vote against them (as seen in Republican voter suppression efforts throughout the south.)
But I think what you actually want to know is what arguments you could present to someone who does not see their vote as important and is potentially not voting.
Like many people have already said, downballot races are where voting actually matters--if you know the person you're talking to and their area reasonably well, you probably can identify a local race or ballot measure that is relevant to their interests, and I would focus on that, as it's both more important than ensuring they vote nationally and more likely to work.
On the question of voting for president:
First of all, how red or blue is the state, really? I vote in California, and if I thought there was any danger of that going Republican in this presidential election, voting would be the least of my concerns. But I would probably do the math very differently if I wasn't in a state that went the same way in the last 8 elections (since Bill Clinton 1992)--which, by this table, is Alaska, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Kansas, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Washington, Wyoming. And for good measure I'd probably bounce Minnesota, Oregon, Texas and Wisconsin from that list, since in at least one of those 8 elections the margin was by < 5%.
That said, I am in one of those safe states, and maybe you (or your friend) is as well, and I've filled out my vote by mail ballot entirely, except for the top race. I am not sure if I'm voting dem, third party, or leaving it blank. Just as pollsters keep an eye on the gaps between potential, registered, and actual voters, they keep an eye on how big the numbers are for the big "turnout-drivers" are relative to downballot participation, and I have the vague, possibly misguided hope that if that number is lower than expected, the democratic party will possibly think about if tacking hard right on immigration and foreign policy might cost them in the numbers.
posted by Why Is The World In Love Again? at 10:18 AM on October 14
Arguably the opposite. If there's a gap between how many eligible potential voters there are and how many vote, or how many register and then don't return ballots, the various pollsters and political operatives who make it their business to care about this sort of thing take notice, and may either try to appeal and tap into an latent segment of the vote or keep the status quo if they have reason to believe that segment of potential voters would vote against them (as seen in Republican voter suppression efforts throughout the south.)
But I think what you actually want to know is what arguments you could present to someone who does not see their vote as important and is potentially not voting.
Like many people have already said, downballot races are where voting actually matters--if you know the person you're talking to and their area reasonably well, you probably can identify a local race or ballot measure that is relevant to their interests, and I would focus on that, as it's both more important than ensuring they vote nationally and more likely to work.
On the question of voting for president:
First of all, how red or blue is the state, really? I vote in California, and if I thought there was any danger of that going Republican in this presidential election, voting would be the least of my concerns. But I would probably do the math very differently if I wasn't in a state that went the same way in the last 8 elections (since Bill Clinton 1992)--which, by this table, is Alaska, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Kansas, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Washington, Wyoming. And for good measure I'd probably bounce Minnesota, Oregon, Texas and Wisconsin from that list, since in at least one of those 8 elections the margin was by < 5%.
That said, I am in one of those safe states, and maybe you (or your friend) is as well, and I've filled out my vote by mail ballot entirely, except for the top race. I am not sure if I'm voting dem, third party, or leaving it blank. Just as pollsters keep an eye on the gaps between potential, registered, and actual voters, they keep an eye on how big the numbers are for the big "turnout-drivers" are relative to downballot participation, and I have the vague, possibly misguided hope that if that number is lower than expected, the democratic party will possibly think about if tacking hard right on immigration and foreign policy might cost them in the numbers.
posted by Why Is The World In Love Again? at 10:18 AM on October 14
I suspect that "I live in a ____ state" thing is more of a handy way to get a voting enthusiast to drop the topic.
You may be interested in this map of voter turnout rates compared to this one of swing states.
None of the states vary all that much from the national average of 66.8%, not even the swing states. If low turnout was really a matter of living in a solidly ____ state you would expect the swing states to stick out like sore thumbs.
Red State or Blue state, for the last 100 years about a third of the country hasn't turned up for Presidential elections. Your passion for motivating them is admirable, but I suspect that for most of them you're just one more fanatic going on about a topic that have no interest in.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 10:27 AM on October 14
You may be interested in this map of voter turnout rates compared to this one of swing states.
None of the states vary all that much from the national average of 66.8%, not even the swing states. If low turnout was really a matter of living in a solidly ____ state you would expect the swing states to stick out like sore thumbs.
Red State or Blue state, for the last 100 years about a third of the country hasn't turned up for Presidential elections. Your passion for motivating them is admirable, but I suspect that for most of them you're just one more fanatic going on about a topic that have no interest in.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 10:27 AM on October 14
This isn't a popular way to put it, and probably not persuasive, but I believe that as a citizen I have both rights and responsibilities. And a responsibility is to vote.
I think the arguments that it counts or doesn't count, will we win or lose anyway, are all justifications for disengagement. As a citizen I consider it a responsibility to engage at the very least as far as making a considered decision about voting. It's like paying taxes. That's the system we have.
posted by warriorqueen at 10:52 AM on October 14
I think the arguments that it counts or doesn't count, will we win or lose anyway, are all justifications for disengagement. As a citizen I consider it a responsibility to engage at the very least as far as making a considered decision about voting. It's like paying taxes. That's the system we have.
posted by warriorqueen at 10:52 AM on October 14
As someone who is a down-ballot candidate, my race could come down to 1,000 votes and we affect people's lives way more than a Senator who is 1 of 100 legislators.
A fun spin on this is that if the election is close here, the losing side can claim voter fraud and possibly invalidate the result of the election. (This has happened once this year and now there is a statute making it easier to do do.)
Someone else mentioned funding -- if no one shows up to vote, the national party (and PACs and non-profits and other grass-roots initiatives) don't either and nothing will change. (And then people in more reasonable states will say we deserve what we get because "we" keep voting terrible people in.)
In some states, if you don't vote in enough consecutive elections, they kick you off the voting rolls and you have to re-register but that can be hassley by design.
My vote for president won't count for much in my red state this time, but I would be delighted if someone would be able to shout it extra loud in a blue state. I feel solidarity from afar.
If you're super blue and that is why you feel your vote doesn't count, there may be initiatives on the ballot beyond candidate races and that is your voice on funding or constitutional amendments or what have you.
In sum, there's more than the president on the ballot! It matters!
posted by *s at 11:17 AM on October 14
A fun spin on this is that if the election is close here, the losing side can claim voter fraud and possibly invalidate the result of the election. (This has happened once this year and now there is a statute making it easier to do do.)
Someone else mentioned funding -- if no one shows up to vote, the national party (and PACs and non-profits and other grass-roots initiatives) don't either and nothing will change. (And then people in more reasonable states will say we deserve what we get because "we" keep voting terrible people in.)
In some states, if you don't vote in enough consecutive elections, they kick you off the voting rolls and you have to re-register but that can be hassley by design.
My vote for president won't count for much in my red state this time, but I would be delighted if someone would be able to shout it extra loud in a blue state. I feel solidarity from afar.
If you're super blue and that is why you feel your vote doesn't count, there may be initiatives on the ballot beyond candidate races and that is your voice on funding or constitutional amendments or what have you.
In sum, there's more than the president on the ballot! It matters!
posted by *s at 11:17 AM on October 14
I live in bluer-than-blue Massachusetts, and we should all remember that Reagan won the state in 1980 by < 4000 votes. Not that it mattered nationally, but you get my point.
posted by scolbath at 11:39 AM on October 14
posted by scolbath at 11:39 AM on October 14
I grew up in a solidly blue county in a solidly blue state in the late 80s, early 90s, and the civics lesson my parents taught me about voting back when they dragged me along to stand in a little booth in a high school cafeteria with them was that there is always always always some whack job trying to run something that you should do your part to keep from getting into whatever position of power that would allow them to really fuck other humans over.
They didn't put it quite like that, but y'know. Vote for president, but also vote to keep some freak from trying to pull books about queer penguin families out of elementary school libraries.
posted by deludingmyself at 11:58 AM on October 14
They didn't put it quite like that, but y'know. Vote for president, but also vote to keep some freak from trying to pull books about queer penguin families out of elementary school libraries.
posted by deludingmyself at 11:58 AM on October 14
Also, here in Colorado I pair that message with the info that state and local campaigns stop contacting you once you turn your mail in ballot in, because they have access to the list of who's already voted.
posted by deludingmyself at 12:03 PM on October 14
posted by deludingmyself at 12:03 PM on October 14
The popular vote versus the Electoral College is an important talking point in debates. Harris used this talking point against Trump in her debate; he lost the popular vote by eighty million popular votes running against Biden, and three million votes against Hillary Clinton. Most of the recent Republican presidents have not won the popular vote. Their vote can help send a "very unpopular" signal to every member of the three branches of government.
Also agreeing with some great other points about down ballot races. It's easy to find a guide to voting if they don't want to do a bunch of research on every candidate.
posted by effluvia at 12:09 PM on October 14
Also agreeing with some great other points about down ballot races. It's easy to find a guide to voting if they don't want to do a bunch of research on every candidate.
posted by effluvia at 12:09 PM on October 14
Putting aside 3rd party candidates, there are three choices for voting, Democrat, Republican or don't vote. It is a perfectly good decision to not vote IF you say you don't like either candidate. The logic behind the "I live in a Blue [Red] state so my vote does not count" is flawed. Let's say that this person lives in California, a blue state and they support Harris. Tell them that if their vote really does not count to vote for Trump to prove it. They won't. And that shows them that their vote does matter.
It is not clear to me that this person is not voting at all or not voting for the President line. The down ballot logic above is spot on. Educate yourself on the local issues and make a decision on those lines even if you do not want to vote for either party for President.
posted by JohnnyGunn at 1:08 PM on October 14
It is not clear to me that this person is not voting at all or not voting for the President line. The down ballot logic above is spot on. Educate yourself on the local issues and make a decision on those lines even if you do not want to vote for either party for President.
posted by JohnnyGunn at 1:08 PM on October 14
Most of the good arguments have already been set out by others, but my bottom-line argument is that it is one of the only things I can do to try to influence the direction of the country (and my state, my county, etc.). My vote is unlikely to make any difference (I live in a very red county in a dependably red state), but if I fail to do everything I possibly can (even though it will be futile), I will not be able to feel good about myself.
In addition to voting in every election, I donate whenever I can afford to. Being that I am a pale blue dot in a wine-dark red sea, I vote in Republican primaries to try to support the least insane republican and to decide who my local officeholders are.
In short, my vote may be useless but it is one of the only tools I have and I will not let it go unused.
posted by statusquoante at 1:44 PM on October 14
In addition to voting in every election, I donate whenever I can afford to. Being that I am a pale blue dot in a wine-dark red sea, I vote in Republican primaries to try to support the least insane republican and to decide who my local officeholders are.
In short, my vote may be useless but it is one of the only tools I have and I will not let it go unused.
posted by statusquoante at 1:44 PM on October 14
Dancing on the hill
Aside from the firstvoter dancer, none of the people in this video really have an impact, right? Still, I'd rather be dancing.
posted by mistersix at 2:19 PM on October 14
Aside from the first
posted by mistersix at 2:19 PM on October 14
I live in a super blue county in a fairly blue state (Maryland) and while I don't have children, I also want to make sure our school board isn't taken over by people I disagree with. I also want to vote on amendments/questions (Maryland has an important one about abortion/reproductive rights).
(Vote411 is incredibly helpful if these people who don't want to vote want to know what's actually going to be on the ballot.)
Admittedly, I don't always vote in primaries but any other election -- countywide or bigger -- I'm there. (Granted, I am incredibly privileged in that my polling place is within walking distance & I have a fairly flexible work schedule so it's easy for me to do so.)
posted by edencosmic at 2:19 PM on October 14
(Vote411 is incredibly helpful if these people who don't want to vote want to know what's actually going to be on the ballot.)
Admittedly, I don't always vote in primaries but any other election -- countywide or bigger -- I'm there. (Granted, I am incredibly privileged in that my polling place is within walking distance & I have a fairly flexible work schedule so it's easy for me to do so.)
posted by edencosmic at 2:19 PM on October 14
I'm having a similar argument with a "politicians are all corrupt, there's no real difference between the two major parties" person. My take on it is that in addition to local matters sometimes being decided by slim margins, if you refrain from voting you send zero signal about your true preferences. No one can tell if you abstained as a protest, are apathetic, weren't informed, or simply forgot.
Your individual vote still might not matter. But if you don't participate at all, you guarantee that it won't.
posted by 4rtemis at 2:57 PM on October 14
Your individual vote still might not matter. But if you don't participate at all, you guarantee that it won't.
posted by 4rtemis at 2:57 PM on October 14
Adding to the minority vote numbers lets other people of that minority persuasion know that you exist, and shows the national party that resources should be directed your way. As pointed out above, it's important to have large popular vote numbers- especially if one of the parties is going to try to argue for the illegitimacy of the election.
posted by oneirodynia at 3:07 PM on October 14
posted by oneirodynia at 3:07 PM on October 14
The margins affect the governing, since politicians generally want to win the next race too. The more the race is a blowout, the more the winner will feel like they have a mandate for their agenda. If you don't like that, make it closer; if you do, run up the score. Demographics are also important (i.e. young people might have their concerns prioritized more if more of them voted).
This is probably even more true the further you go down-ballot.
posted by davidest at 3:36 PM on October 14
This is probably even more true the further you go down-ballot.
posted by davidest at 3:36 PM on October 14
Re things being decided by the Census: this is true, but the people in power in your state can make it easier or more difficult for the Census to be run properly in your area. In the last Census some states had public awareness campaigns about what the Census meant, how to be counted, did outreach to historically undercounted populations, etc. Other states made it difficult to get information.
posted by The corpse in the library at 4:46 PM on October 14
posted by The corpse in the library at 4:46 PM on October 14
So it is true in the US that individual votes matter least for president (by design, since the writers of the constitution wanted to consolidate power in the hands of the landed elite) and most for local races. The smaller the voting pool (state, county, city) the more likely an individual or small group of individual votes will determine the outcome and this can have quite significant effects in people's real lives.
For example, during the ACA rollout, a lot of Republican governors refused federal funds for expanding medicaid, which prevented a lot of people in those state from getting access to health care. Voter suppression measures like gerrymandering, voter ID laws, and poll closures are done by state legislatures. Police funding, school curriculum, treatment of unhoused people--these are all determined on city, county, or state level.
If you're trying to convince these folks to vote, sharing information is good and certainly share your perspective, but I encourage you to really listen to what they are saying about how they view the world and keep in mind that for them their perspective is just as meaningful as yours is for you.
posted by radiogreentea at 4:59 PM on October 14
For example, during the ACA rollout, a lot of Republican governors refused federal funds for expanding medicaid, which prevented a lot of people in those state from getting access to health care. Voter suppression measures like gerrymandering, voter ID laws, and poll closures are done by state legislatures. Police funding, school curriculum, treatment of unhoused people--these are all determined on city, county, or state level.
If you're trying to convince these folks to vote, sharing information is good and certainly share your perspective, but I encourage you to really listen to what they are saying about how they view the world and keep in mind that for them their perspective is just as meaningful as yours is for you.
posted by radiogreentea at 4:59 PM on October 14
You just Vote!. That's what citizens of democratic or sorta democratic countries do. We pay our taxes and we vote. I've never missed an election in the 60 years of my eligibility and I am proud of it. I also go to Town Meeting in my tiny NH town because I care about my neighbors and my taxes and my schools and roads and public safety. I vote because I'm a citizen and I not only have rights but I also have responsibilities, as has been said. It's not an onerous task and it feels really good.
posted by Hobgoblin at 7:00 PM on October 14
posted by Hobgoblin at 7:00 PM on October 14
It's worth remembering that more than just the winner counts for future planning and such.
Just for example, even at the presidential level, if your state goes 53/47 or 55/45 or 60/40 or 70/30 will make a difference in how assets are allocated in the next election. No one is going to try to save the 70/30 state, but they sure might the 53/47 or even the 55/45.
Also, everyone is looking at trends. Is your state red and getting redder, or blue but moving towards red, and so on. Those are things that strategists look at to figure out what to deploy where in future elections.
Back when I lived in a heavily Red state I used to vote for a lot of 3rd party candidates and such - with the idea that this was basically a vote against both parties. When both parties see 20% of the vote (or whatever) going to these off-brand candidates, it should start to make them think.
Just for example, look at voter totals in Utah (massively Red state) from the 1980s until today. 1992, Ross Perot got 27% of the vote - MORE THAN Clinton, and keeping Bush to well under 50% of the vote total. 2016: Third party candidate gets 21.5% of the vote - Trump gets well below 50% of the total.
Those kinds of vote totals do indeed send a message - even though the top winner is never in any doubt.
Turnout sends a message, too - in several different ways. Just for example, one strategy often used is to run a negative campaign - which has the express intention of depressing turnout. The hope/plan is that the opponent's voters will be turned off and stay home in higher numbers that yours.
In an election like that, just turning out & voting helps send the people who run campaigns the message that such tactics are not working.
posted by flug at 8:51 PM on October 14
Just for example, even at the presidential level, if your state goes 53/47 or 55/45 or 60/40 or 70/30 will make a difference in how assets are allocated in the next election. No one is going to try to save the 70/30 state, but they sure might the 53/47 or even the 55/45.
Also, everyone is looking at trends. Is your state red and getting redder, or blue but moving towards red, and so on. Those are things that strategists look at to figure out what to deploy where in future elections.
Back when I lived in a heavily Red state I used to vote for a lot of 3rd party candidates and such - with the idea that this was basically a vote against both parties. When both parties see 20% of the vote (or whatever) going to these off-brand candidates, it should start to make them think.
Just for example, look at voter totals in Utah (massively Red state) from the 1980s until today. 1992, Ross Perot got 27% of the vote - MORE THAN Clinton, and keeping Bush to well under 50% of the vote total. 2016: Third party candidate gets 21.5% of the vote - Trump gets well below 50% of the total.
Those kinds of vote totals do indeed send a message - even though the top winner is never in any doubt.
Turnout sends a message, too - in several different ways. Just for example, one strategy often used is to run a negative campaign - which has the express intention of depressing turnout. The hope/plan is that the opponent's voters will be turned off and stay home in higher numbers that yours.
In an election like that, just turning out & voting helps send the people who run campaigns the message that such tactics are not working.
posted by flug at 8:51 PM on October 14
we go to the trouble of voting to honour those who battled to get us the right, sometimes dying in the process.
sometimes it matters
posted by philip-random at 11:01 PM on October 14
sometimes it matters
posted by philip-random at 11:01 PM on October 14
Because women have not always been allowed to vote. Because in my country, people without property have not always been able to vote, because in my lifetime, I have seen queues of people on the news lining up to vote for the first time after the end of apartheid. Because the right to vote is still not universal.
posted by plonkee at 11:19 PM on October 14
posted by plonkee at 11:19 PM on October 14
[One comment removed. Let's avoid analogies that involve killing pets, even hypothetically. ]
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:03 AM on October 15
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:03 AM on October 15
Massachusetts voter here. Not thrilled about presidential choices, but certainly see the Republican lack of respect for our rule of law being a real bummer. I hope by voting I’m helping make the overall popular vote total higher. The more that is higher the less of a legitimate ruler Trump would be if he is able to win the electoral college or the Supreme Court.
Also agree with above that it’s irresponsible not to vote down ballot/local, but I doubt that would sway these types of folks.
posted by creiszhanson at 7:45 AM on October 15
Also agree with above that it’s irresponsible not to vote down ballot/local, but I doubt that would sway these types of folks.
posted by creiszhanson at 7:45 AM on October 15
« Older What is the current view of Gillian Bently's... | Seeking recommendations for new dumb garage door... Newer »
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
The national race for president gets a lot of over-emphasis in the runup to election day, but that is usually FAR from the only race on the ballot. I'm in hyper-blue NYC but I'm still turning out to vote, largely because I also will be casting a vote for things like "should New York State pass its own Equal Rights Amendment" or "should NYC's sanitation crews also clean up things like parks and highway meridians". Those kind of votes aren't as sexy as the one for president, but they have a MUCH more direct impact on your average voter.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 7:42 AM on October 14