http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/06/magazine/why-vote.html
http://mentalfloss.com/article/59873/10-elections-decided-one-vote-or-less
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/25/opinion/should-everybody-vote.html
http://reason.com/archives/2012/10/03/your-vote-doesnt-count/
As you read through the articles in the above links, you should answer the following questions:
1) Explain two reasons why you believe that people feel so strongly about voting.
2) Explain the main conclusion that is reached in the article "Should everybody vote?"
3) Explain 3 reasons why economists suggest that people should NOT vote.
4) After reading the articles, do you believe that every citizen of voting age should vote? Why or why not?
31 comments:
Sophie W
1) One reason people feel so strongly about voting is that having citizens of voting age vote expresses the belief that our government is a representation of the people. They have a say in what occurs and what decisions are made. Another reason people feel so strongly about voting is that during the election cycle, in our society, candidates often strive to evoke strong feelings in citizens so that they they have a higher chance to win. This will either convince citizens to strongly vote or strongly not vote.
2) The main conclusion that is reached in the article "Should everybody vote?" is that most voters are uninformed because they don’t have the time to research all the candidates. This allows for a less than optimum election because there’s emotions and money playing a hand. It offers up one alternative but essentially says our current system is not perfect and we should look for improvement.
3) One reasons economists say you should note vote is that it is a waste of time, effort, and productivity. You could be doing something more valuable and time worthy than voting. The end result from casting your single vote does not outweigh the cost on time and effort of the voter. A second reason economists say you should not vote is that your single vote rarely affects the results. If your single vote does not affect the results, then there seems to be no visible reason to vote. There is about a one in 60 million chance of a single vote impacting the results (“Your Vote Doesn’t Count”). A third reason economists say you should not vote is that even if your vote were to have an effect, the closer an election is, the less your vote will count. The close elections take away your chance of your vote impacting the election which gives you a reason not to vote in the first place.
4) No, I do not believe every citizen of voting age should vote. If you are uneducated on the important issues that the president would deal with and the views of the candidates, then you shouldn’t vote. A large misinformed or uneducated group of people voting can be harmful to the election and therefore harmful to the country. However, I do believe that everyone should become educated and if everyone were educated, then yes everyone should vote. It’s important to be aware of what is happening in your country. If you want America to be a country with opportunities, rights, and privileges, we need to work hard to keep it that way or change what needs to be changed to help it and to protect it. In the same way that a large group of uneducated people can harm the country, large groups of educated people can greatly help the country. Yes, it seems true that a single vote cannot determine election results. However, large groups of votes can make a difference. Voting not only in presidential elections, but elections for senators and representatives can also greatly make a difference. These representatives can sometimes have larger effects on our daily lives than the president.
Caitlin G.
1.People feel so strongly about voting because they are very firm on the idea of whether or not your vote counts. Some people believe that if you vote, your single vote will have no significance in the poll and that it is a waste of time when the only thing you are truly taking away is the pride you have because you did you ‘civic duty’. However others, who support voting, argue that in the past there have been elections where a single vote, or very few votes did have lots of significance. Not all examples of this are from America, but this further proves their point of a single vote possibly having significance all over the world.
2.The main conclusion reached in “Should everybody vote” is that even though a single vote may not count it's the idea that the whole community working together is what makes the votes count. If people are not convinced with that the article suggests that America puts together a random group of registered voters to make decisions for the whole country. They would be educated on all the candidates so they can cast their vote with the best information. However, this would be unconstitutional because it denies people the right to vote and would could only be done with the alterations of amendments. Since this would be unconstitutional the article suggests the possibility of an unofficial jury of voters who would take part in the campaign and be the most informed and educated in order to result in a better election.
3.One of the 3 reasons economists say people should not vote is that a single vote does not count. When people vote their single vote does so little in the big picture that it is completely pointless to even cast your vote. With the chances of your vote deciding the election being so slim, approx one in 60 million, your vote does not count therefore has no reason to exist. Another reason economists say people shouldn't vote is that despite what is said, voting is not an investment for your future. In fact, the time you spend going out to vote could be spent in other ways that would have a high pay-off such as getting an extra hour of sleep or writing a blog post. Even not driving your car to the election can reduce the risk of dying in a car crash that day which would be worth more than a vote. The last reason economists argue that people shouldn't vote is that voting is not the civic duty people make it out to be. Lots of people who are highly educated vote even if they are not well informed. People should only vote if they have all the information they need in order to make an educated vote. Even people who follow politics are not completely informed however they vote anyway. When you encourage majorities to vote the chances are is that they are not well informed on the election and will make the wrong choice.
4.After reading all these articles I still believe that people should vote. Even though a single vote does not make the difference it's the collective effort that puts our candidates into office and if these articles convince less and less people to vote we have a small percentage of the country deciding on behalf of everyone.
Mike Pe (2)
One reason is a strong moral incentive. Since millions of people died for this country to become a democracy, many feel that they are obligated to fulfill their civic duties to the maximum. “88% of people said that they consider voting in public elections to be morally good.” This country was based on the fact that everyone, regardless of social status, race and religion, has a say in government. So when you don't vote, you are not taking part of your democracy. If everyone acted as the nonvoters do, the whole system would fall apart.
There is also a strong social incentive behind voting. People are drawn in by the fact that they can be seen performing their civic duty. In a close-knit community, people that may not vote could feel intimidated that they will be looked down upon if people don't see them at the polls.
2) Explain the main conclusion that is reached in the article "Should everybody vote?"
One reality of voting that can't be overlooked is that the general public is very under informed and usually biased when it comes to political candidates. So should people who are undereducated in what they are voting for actually vote? The article debates the idea of a having a select group of people vote. These people would be educated in an unbiased way on political topics to make an informed decision on who should be president. The problem is this jury system of voting would receive public backlash from people that believe voting is essential to being part of a democracy.
3) Explain 3 reasons why economists suggest that people should NOT vote.
One reason is that “in all of American history, a single vote has ever determined the outcome of a presidential election.” Therefore going to the polls to vote is essentially a waste of time because there is no payback for your irrelevant vote.
Another reason is that most of the general public is ill-informed on politics. Therefore, they are more likely to make a poor choice of presidency. They are better off staying home and allowing the politically educated to make the choice for them. Choosing a president is a process that should require credentials and prerequisites, at least a knowledge of policy issues being debated. It is not something that should be taken lightly.
The marginal cost of voting outweighs the marginal benefit. Since your vote doesn’t count then you could be doing something more productive with your time. Basically anything that you can do for society is more productive and efficient than casting your meaningless vote.
4) After reading the articles, do you believe that every citizen of voting age should vote? Why or why not?
No. It is important to evaluate yourself before you go to the polls. Are you educated enough to make the proper decision on your political candidate? If the answer is yes, then by all means you should vote. If the answer is no than you should either do some research, or stay home. I think that the general public is not receiving the correct information about politics. Most of the things I see on the news or on social media is extremely biased and the facts are not well supported. It is crucial to find a trustworthy source to inform yourself on politics. If you really want to vote, you absolutely have the right to vote, and you should take some time to educate yourself before you go. But if you are too busy to educate yourself, or simply too lazy, than you are going to make an ill-informed decision based on extremely biased, untrustworthy information. Given that your vote really doesn't mean much, if you stay home you are decreasing the voter pool for more educated voters whose vote will carry more weight. Obviously this has to occur on a monumental scale, but the drawing back of weak votes in large amount would make a difference. Mike Pe (2)
Adam W.
1. One reason is the idea that voting is a civic duty. In our government, a republic, voting is a fundamental process that decides who will run the government. The republic is based on the idea that the people should have a considerable influence in how the government is administered, and that, therefore, the people are also responsible to contribute to government by voting. Another reason is the idea that every vote matters in the outcome of an election. Most people are bound to prefer the principles of one candidate more than another, and they might believe that their votes will sway the balance of which candidate gets elected to office. The election is seen as a struggle where any vote not casted to one side is harmful thereto.
2. This article concludes that the current greatest problem with voting is that most people are inadequately educated to make meaningful decisions in elections. Most people simply do not have the resources to learn the information needed for properly voting. This is a problem because the basis of the voting system is that citizens should indicate what they want from the government, and the fact that many people are poorly informed on the issue means that many are unable to understand which candidates align with their views.
3. One reason is that, statistically, an individual’s vote has virtually no influence in the outcome of an election. A person’s time and energy could be much better spent doing something else than voting, and even certain bodily risks involved in going to vote are more likely than a vote having a significant influence in an election. Another reason is that most people are not sufficiently knowledgeable about the options in an election—it is probable that a given person would be unable to make a meaningful decision while voting, simply because he is uninformed. This person may even have views that are dangerous and that could carry into his vote. It is also probable that one who thinks himself informed regarding an election is actually not, which means that thinking oneself to be knowledgeable is a poor indicator of whether one actually has the power to vote properly. Another reason is that voting is generally seen as a duty, civic and moral, of citizens. This is considered an irrational mindset because it disregards important factors to consider in voting—how informed a voter is, how much a single vote matters, what people could be doing otherwise to be productive, for example. For many, this is the primary reason why they vote, and economists would argue that this is a problem.
4. I do not, because I believe that the votes of many people would be misplaced in any election. Most people are too uninformed to place valuable votes, and there are virtually no practical and probably ways as of yet to educate all potential voters for each election. I do believe that civilian voting should be an integral part of our government, but the way that that system is applied in our government is not ideal.
Will C
1) People feel so strongly about voting because they feel like there is a social obligation to go vote and be seen by others. They don’t want to be judged by others. Others might look down on non-voters because they are taking Americans’ privilege to vote for granted. Another reason people feel strongly about voting is that they look at it as the lottery almost. There is that slim chance that their vote will be the deciding vote, so they feel that they have to vote.
2) The main conclusion that was reached in the article, “Should Everybody Vote?” is that many of the current voters are not well-educated on the topic of varying candidates. This leads to a biased election results. The article suggests that we need to find a way to properly educate voters about the candidates. However, this would be “impractical, time-consuming and expensive.”
3) The first reason is that the cost to vote (time, effort, etc.) exceeds what you get out of voting, which is “some vague sense of having done your ‘civic duty.’” A second reason is that your vote probably won’t matter. There has never been an American presidential election that was decided by one vote. The odds that your vote will be the deciding factor is slim to none. A third reason is that many voters aren’t properly educated about the candidates. This leads to biased election results, so voters not properly educated about the candidates are better off not voting at all.
4)In my opinion, I believe everyone properly educated about the candidates should vote. When voters choose a candidate without knowing what they stand for, the results will be biased. If only voters that were educated on the topic of the election voted, than the bias would be minimized. Additionally, if economist persuaded an abundant amount of voters to not vote then the election results may not be a good representation of the whole population. Lastly, people in other parts of the world, would fight and die for the right to vote, so we can not take voting for granted in America.
Cara D
People believe voting is a civic-duty and that their votes will affect the outcome of the election. People tend to feel guilty if they do not participate and vote. However, the chance their vote will affect the election is close to zero.
Since not every voter is properly informed about each candidates policies or willing to vote for one of the two candidates presented, this article suggested there should be a third option on the ballot, “No Acceptable Candidate”. The article concluded that each start should have a jury hear nothing, but the unbiased facts about each candidate and their votes will ultimately represent the people’s option.
Economics suggest people not vote. Voting will not determine the outcome of the election. Again, the chance your vote will determine the outcome of the election is close to zero. Some people are not educated enough to vote. Uneducated people going to blindly vote is “morally wrong”. Finally, it comes with a cost of time, effort and with no visible payoff.
No, only individuals who truly are educated about each candidate and their policies should be voting. Otherwise, we have citizens blindly pulling the lever for a candidate they know nothing about.
1. People feel so strongly about voting because many feel that by voting is their “civic duty” therefore, they feel obligated to vote. Another reason is that voting is a communal activity, so if everyone votes collectively, there will be a greater impact in the election.
2.The main conclusion that is reached in this article is that there are numerous people in our county who are uninformed voters which greatly skew the polls. The idea proposed is to have a random jury of citizens who represent the nation’s diverse views. This type of jury may be the best way to move towards informed and intelligent polls.
3.Three reasons why economists suggest that people should not vote are that the chance that one individual vote will make a difference is very close to zero, so there is really no point in voting. Another reason is typically well-educated people are the ones to vote; however, many people are not good at knowing whether they are well-informed. Lastly, once the candidate is elected as president, there is no way of knowing whether he or she will fulfill the promises made previously. We have no insight as to what the president will do once he or she is sent to Washington.
4.After reading these articles I do believe that every citizen of voting age should vote because if every voter is well-informed and educated on the topics being discussed at hand, then the votes will actually hold important meaning. Sovereign power is within the community as a whole, therefore, an individual vote will still have weight.
Sam S.
1.One reason people feel so strongly about voting is because they feel it is their civic duty to vote. There is a strong social satisfaction that comes with voting and people may also feel guilty not being seen voting. Dubner and Levitt suggest that, “the most valuable payoff of voting is simply being seen at the polling place by your friends or co-workers.” I also think that people feel so strongly about voting because it is the premise of democracy. People have fought so many times over the years to be given the right to vote, such as African Americans and women. To not vote is almost to say that they don’t care about the rights given to them and don’t support democracy.
2. The author suggests that not voting can be a protest against all valid candidates, however, he also gives reason why people may want to vote such as wanting “to express solidarity with everyone who favors my candidates, to support the democratic process in general, to set an example that will encourage others to vote, or even just to feel the personal satisfaction of having voted.” This leads into his conclusions that we should have a smaller selection of the population become well informed on politics and then allow them to vote. He suggests ideas such as the “enfranchisement lottery” which “would restrict voting to a randomly chosen group of citizens who are provided unbiased in-depth information relevant to an election.” He also suggests a method where jurors chosen from registered voters come together to learn about politics and will influence other voters. Overall, the main conclusion is that the voting system we have now is not the most efficient and that there are many steps and oppositions that need to be taken into consideration to change it.
3. One reason economists suggest we should not vote is because it will not affect the outcome of the election. Katherine Mangu-Ward says, “In all of American history, a single vote has never determined the outcome of a presidential election.” Economists feel you put more effort into voting than you will see in results. Another reason economists suggest we should not vote is because being an uninformed voter can actually hurt the election and cause us to fail in our civic duty. Mangu-Ward suggests that “If you believe your vote is likely to be ill-informed or that a particular race is likely to yield an unfair, unjust, or otherwise bad outcome, you should refrain from participating in a collectively harmful activity.” Lastly, economists suggest we should not vote because, at the end of the day, the real decision comes down to the hands of the rich and powerful. Dubner and Levitt give the example of the 2000 election where “it was only the votes they cast while wearing their robes that mattered”, suggesting that only the votes that were cast by high ranking officials really matter in the election, so why waste our time.
4. Despite the fact that most of the articles give convincing facts on why we should not vote, I still believe that eligible voters should participate. I believe people are too unaware of how little their vote really matters and, therefore, when they vote, they feel as though they are truly involved in the government process and that they are a part of a fair democracy. This keeps the general public happy and unproblematic. However, when people begin to question our democracy and if voting really works, we are essentially setting ourselves up for a possible civil war between the powerful and the common man. Therefore, I believe everyone should keep their opinions to themselves, while keeping the majority of people who think voting actually affects anything happy and unproblematic. When people believe voting works, they believe democracy works.
Sean B.
1.Two reasons why people feel so strongly about voting is first that people believe that voting is a civic duty. People believe that they have to vote to be a good citizen, thus it’s their civic duty to vote. People who vote see people who don’t vote as bad citizens due to not fulfilling their civic duty in voting. The other reason that people feel so strongly about voting is that voting decides the future of the country by voting for the president. For example, because the president has so much influence on the country, people vote just to pick the right person for the job. People feel that voting is necessary to insure the right president is elected.
2.The main conclusion in the article, “Should Everyone Vote,” is how to improve elections by getting informed people to vote. For example, by getting people more informed about elections, people will be more aware of issues in society and vote for the right candidate. Furthermore, in the enfranchisement lottery idea, only a certain of group of people who are fully informed about the election should vote. This would eliminate uniformed people voting and this would allow for the best candidate to win the election. Lastly, there was an idea to have a large jury of several thousands that represents all the diverse groups in the United States, and to inform the jury to decide on the presidential election. This jury would represent all groups in the United States and at the same time be filled with informed voters. All these ideas are to get the people to be informed about the election to improve the election as a whole.
3.Three reasons economists say that people should not vote is first that your vote almost doesn’t matter. For example, two economists, Casey Mulligan and Charles Hunter, analyzed more than 40,000 elections with only seven elections for state legislature were decided by a single vote with two being tied. Furthermore, in more than 16,000 congressional elections, only one was decided by a single vote. Lastly, in a study of the 2008 election, the chance of a random vote deciding the presidential election is one in 60 million. Because of this, your vote very likely doesn’t matter. The next reason economists say people should not vote is voting is too much cost for almost no award. For example, voting costs productivity in time and effort with the only reward being that you have done your civic duty. The last reason that economists say that people should not vote is some people are just ignorant about the election. Some people think they know everything about the political election and it turns out they know nothing and vote a candidate for a wrong reason.
4.After reading the articles, I believe that all citizens of legal age should vote. Although the likelihood of your vote actually mattering is almost nothing, people should vote to fulfill their civic duty. By voting, people feel that they matter in society and feel that they are part of the country and part of the democracy. Although economists argue that voting is unproductive and the cost of voting is not worth voting, people don’t vote based on productivity. People vote to be patriotic and vote for what they think is best for the country as a whole. By not voting, people are giving up their say in government, thus not contributing to the democracy as a whole. Despite what economists say, people should vote to participate in society.
Ben B.
Two reasons that people feel strongly about voting is that one some feel it's the basis of our government and democracy and the second reason is that people feel that our government is rigged and that voting is just a way for the upper classes to make us feel that we have control.
The main conclusion from the article "Should everybody Vote?" is that our voting system would be much more efficient if it was done by a jury of extremely well informed citizens and not by millions of likely ignorant voters.
Three reasons that economists argue against voting is one that voting cause nonexistent material gain, the second is that ignorant people voting causes harm to society and the third is that single votes rarely decide elections, which means that an individual's vote is lost to the masses.
I don't think people in America should vote. This country has long since sold it's founding motto of being a government for the people to being one for lobbyists and corporate campaign funding. The people's power in government has been severally reduced not only because of monetary greed but because of a two party system that has led to a legislative body more inactive than a fly stuck in amber. And with millions of citizens either politically apathetic or supporting one of the two major parties I think America's voting population to frail to do anything effective.
Hannah R.
The question of whether each individual vote matters is becoming more relevant each day as we come closer to the presidential election in November. Many Americans acknowledge that it is their constitutional right and civic duty to vote in elections, but it is debatable if these votes even make a difference. If a voter knows that his vote will not bring about any change, then why bother? Americans feel so strongly about voting because they believe that it is their civil duty to vote, and it is the societal norm. Many people vote so that they can say that they did, not because they want their candidate to win. People also feel strongly about voting because they believe that even if their vote does count, wealthy corporations are the ones who really determine government actions, so the common person does not have a say anyway. Gary Gutting’s article “Should Everybody Vote” discusses if individual votes count, and what other alternatives could function better than our current election process. The article describes how, “as long as we have free elections, our wealthy rulers do not have dictatorial power.” But that is only beneficial when voters are electing the candidates who act in their interests. Many voters do not have the time or resources to truly learn about and understand the policies of each candidate. Gutting describes an alternative voting process similar to a jury system in which a random group of people are educated on the candidates before they vote. Although this may be impractical, Gutting acknowledges that this idea could be used not to decide the election, but to influence voters via television. I agree that voter education needs to be enforced, and I think that a televised jury would be beneficial in helping the public understand the platforms of the candidates. However, many economists believe that voting is a waste of time because an individual vote will not determine an election. In Dubner and Levitt’s article “Why Vote?,” they discuss how “voting exacts a cost -- in time, effort, lost productivity -- with no discernible payoff except perhaps some vague sense of having done your ‘civic duty.’” The cost of voting outweighs any benefit that voting may have. Gutting states that the chance of an individual's vote determining the outcome of an election is 1 in 60 million. Katherine Mangu-Ward argues that people should not vote because the majority of people do not know enough about a candidate to vote out of their best interest. Even if a person is educated, he could be misinformed on the actual beliefs of the candidates. Mangu-Ward also describes how it is “morally wrong” to enforce the idea that people have to vote, because people who are ignorant about political issues actually have a civic duty not to vote. I believe that every person capable of doing so should vote only if they are thoroughly educated on the issues. Even though a single vote will not make a difference in the outcome of an election, voting is still necessary because it is a communal action, not an individual effort. One person’s action will not make a difference, but a single vote will add to votes of others who have the same beliefs, and collectively that can make a difference.
Sebastian G
Explain two reasons you believe that people feel so strongly about voting.
I think the primary reason people feel so strongly about voting is a sense of civic duty. For the most part, people feel a responsibility to fill out the ballot because they believe that in doing so they are doing what is in the best interest of the community. In the United States this would be especially prominent because the Revolutionary War was fought so that we would have to right to vote, so not doing so seems like a blatantly disrespectful disregard of our founding fathers wishes. Additionally, social pressures also entice many people to hit the polls on election day. The signs around town encourage voting and community members that are particularly enthusiastic about their town engage others to cast their ballots as well. This creates a stigma that those who do not go out and vote are therefore lesser community members because they appear to not care.
Explain the main conclusion that is reached in the article "Should everybody vote?"
The main conclusion of the article is that voters have a responsibility to be informed about political issues prior to voting. A majority of the citizens who vote are not the most educated and very few are completely informed on all of the issues that come to light during an election. The author proposes an alternate voting system that is reliant on a jury chosen randomly and then educated in advance to the election. The author has different variations of this solution in order to address different issues but ultimately the author is trying to communicate that those who vote despite being uninformed or misinformed are ultimately hurting the election.
Explain 3 reasons why economists suggest that people should NOT vote.
The first reason economists suggest not to vote is because they view voting as something trivial and ultimately pointless. Statistically speaking, one individual's chances of effecting an election are one in 60 million. The number of times that elections have come down to a single person’s vote is very minimal and so realistically your vote is insignificant in terms of all of the ballots cast. Additionally, economists suggests that a great deal of the voting public is uneducated and misinformed about political issues, so there vote is actually hurting the election because despite good intentions, they don’t know what is best for the country. Lastly, economists cite a high opportunity cost with going to the polls and casting a ballot. Along with the idea that your vote is ultimately insignificant, you are also spending an hour or so performing a task that is in theory unproductive. This hour could have been spent sleeping or working, two tasks that are in theory more beneficial to the individual.
After reading the articles, do you believe that every citizen of voting age should vote? Why or why not?
I believe every citizen of voting age certainly should vote. Despite the rational mindset that one vote is insignificant in the millions that are cast, voting is a communal task. It is up to the majority to make decisions and if individuals choose not to perform their civic duty of voting than the whole system falls apart. Together, our votes make the difference. The ability to vote is a right that is essential to maintaining a democracy because it ensures that the opinion of the masses be heard. Voting for third party candidates seems like a waste as they rarely have a legitimate shot at the presidency. However, if all individuals who feel strongly about a third party vote for it, it is productive because it draws attention to the issue the third party represents.
Christina Portuallo
1. People feel so strongly about voting because they get to participate in democracy rather than not given a say in communist like governments. People also feel so strongly about voting because they think their votes accounts for more than it actually does.
2. In the article “Should everybody vote?”, the conclusion that everyone in fact should vote. The author states that voting is communal not individual, and that every vote, has weight on the political voting community. However the author discuss’ how he thinks the best method might be to have “unofficial jury that would be chosen by a consortium of major universities or of television news division that would meet, discuss in depth and vote several weeks before the actual election”.
3. Many economists suggest that people should not vote. One reason being that your vote barely has any value in the election. Jason Brennan calculated that one vote is approximately 2,648 orders of magnitude less than a penny. Another reason being that there really isn't any pay off to going to the voting polls other than the social incentive of being seen at the polls. If anything, is costs you more money for the gas to get there and the hour that could have been doing something more productive than casting a vote that just barely counts. Finally, economists believe that “the gap between the promised and real consequences of electing one guy over another is very difficult to anticipate”, because what they promise isn't necessarily what they will do.
4. Yes, after reading the articles I still do believe that all Americans should vote. I believe this because it is not only our civic duty to do so but something that was fought for by people in the past. Having some sort of say is important to me because, this being the country I reside in, I want to make sure that I have have my say. However, since it has little value, it's more about the moral incentive of voting.
Nick M.
1) One reason is that some people feel morally obligated to vote. One aspect that can be considered part of being a “good citizen” is voting, which in theory demonstrates your acknowledgement of the right to vote in our country. However, the underlying reason why people feel strongly about voting is the underlying social incentive. By being seen at the polls, an individual can display they are “being a good citizen” by voting. In addition, if a voter is rallying for a third party or underdog candidate, they may be incentivized more so than a supporter of a major candidate because they may believe their vote is more important to the success of their candidate.
2) In this article, the author discusses the true impact of an individual vote, as well as the qualification of those who do vote. One proposal introduced was to randomly select a group of registered voters and educate them before they vote, and then count those votes. One issue is that throughout America’s history, suffrage for all people has been fought for, and this solution would strip that away. The conclusion derived from this is to instead have the jury inform voters and educate them before the election occurs in order to ensure that the voters who decide the country’s future are informed on important policies.
3) a) The chances that your vote actually count are slim to none. One study suggests an individual vote has a one in sixty million chance of actually influencing the outcome of the election. Therefore, it doesn't make sense for the individual to vote if they have such an insignificant chance of affecting the outcome.
b) Most voters aren’t educated on the issues that matter the most to an election. While it is true that an individual voter can devote the resources to become educated on an election, for most voters who do not dedicate the time to do so, it would be a better option to let those more educated vote on the subject
c) The opportunity cost of voting does not make up for the effort given to vote. In order to vote, an individual must take time out of their day to locate a voting center and drive to the center. The risk of getting into an accident far outweighs the marginal benefit of voting, let alone the loss of time that could be spent doing more valuable things.
4) I do not believe every citizen of voting age should vote. While I do believe that every person should retain their right to vote, the lack of knowledge of the important topics is what keeps me from thinking everyone should vote. Instead of learning about issues and topics and deciding which could inform voters on the better option, it often seems as if flashy statements and senseless arguments often take up the forefront of politics. This can lead to uninformed decisions and, as a result, unqualified leaders.
1. I think the primary reason as to why people feel so strongly about voting is that they want their voice to be heard on issues that affect them. If there is a candidate that promises to address issues directly affecting the voter, casting a vote for them is a way to feel involved in the process of bringing about positive change to the country. Another reason for why people may feel strongly about voting is that they have been taught to be extremely opinionated since birth, and most likely feel pressured by everyone to vote.
2. Voting in its current state is very inefficient, and would be much better if the number of people voting could be reduced so the Individual votes mattered more. This is because there is no incentive to vote because of how insignificant an individual vote is.
3. Out of 40000 elections analyzed, only 7 were decided by a single vote. The median margin of victory in congressional elections was 22% which is far too large for a single vote to have any impact on the result. The closer the election is, the more likely that the only votes that would matter are those cast by supreme court justices.
4. I don’t think that everyone should vote, in the current state of voting, there is little incentive for people to vote or research who to vote for. If there was a lottery implemented to select a number of people to vote, the people elected to vote would be able to dedicate more time to research the candidate that they would support. This lottery however would have to ensure an accurate representation of all social classes and groups. This would create an accurate sample size of what an election would look like if everyone researched the candidates thoroughly and everyone voted.
Allison J
1) People vote because they want to feel like they were able to help decide how they are living in this country. Another reason why people feel strongly about voting because it is a right that they are given, so they feel that it is their civic duty to go and vote.
2) The conclusion that the author of “Should Everybody Vote?” has come to is that people need to be better informed for the voting process to make the best possible decision. Due to lack of time, not everyone can follow all of the details about the candidates and their debates. Because of this, the author suggests to select a randomized jury, inform them of the candidates and their policies, and let them decide who the best candidate is. The jury system can not be used to make final decisions as this would deny many people the right to vote; however, the results could influence others to become more involved as they see a potential outcome of the elections.
3) Economists believe that people shouldn’t vote because it wastes the time you can spend on something else. There is also a very small chance that your vote will change the outcome of the election. Also, there isn’t any incentive to vote like there was back then; there is just the pressure of society telling you that your vote is important.
4) Every person should have the right to vote, but those who don’t know who to vote for shouldn’t have to vote. Many people don’t want to vote because they don’t think any of the candidates are suitable and that is fine. If a person that didn’t want to vote was forced to, they may not pick the person they really think is the best which could potentially corrupt the data. This wouldn’t show who the people really want as president and we want the majority of the people to be represented by our president, so it is best to let the people decide if they want to vote or not to ensure the most true results.
One reason is that there were multiple elections that were decided upon a few votes. For example in 2008 an Indiana politician lost an election by only one vote. Another reason is that they think that everybody has a civic duty to vote.
The main conclusion of the article “Should Everybody Vote” is that there should be a new way to vote. And that way of voting is by picking a jury that will change up the current methods of voting.
One reason they suggest not to vote is that the odds that a vote actually “counting” are very slim. Another reason is that people do not have the correct knowledge to make the right vote and that they believe that their vote will make a difference. Lastly economists suggest not to vote because the chances of a vote “determining” an election are small.
In my opinion I believe every citizen of voting age does not need to vote in an election. I feel this way because our government is a democracy and voting is not forced upon but is felt as a “civic duty” instead of a law. Moreover, citizens should have the right to choose to vote or not to vote instead of being forced to vote.
Ethan B.
1. One of the reasons that I believe that people feel so strongly about voting is they have a wrong idea of completing this civic duty. Most people that are feel so strongly about voting believe that it is their job in their community to go to the polls and vote for their next President, mayor, etc. There is then a social incentive that if you are not seen at the polls voting, then you will be “made fun of” for not following the social pressure of their small communities. Another reason that people feel so strongly about voting is that if everyone follows the actions of the non-voters then our entire democracy would fall apart. It is important that people still go to the polls and vote so that our country’s government can continue to be run like it has been doing so since the late 1700s.
2. In the article, “Should Everybody Vote?”, the main conclusion is that despite the widely-accepted fact that only the wealthy corporation owners or high-ranking government officials have a say in picking a candidate for any election, the United States of America is still a democracy. This means that we still have free elections, which shows that “our wealthy rulers do not have dictatorial power” and will not as long as America is a democracy. Throughout the article, the author makes mention of creating a national jury with members from all over the country, yet this would still be prior to the main elections.
3. One reason why economists suggest that people should not vote is the fact that your vote will have no influence. Economists say that the odds that your vote will matter in the election of any official are very, very low. The average voter, in fact, had one in 60 million chance of deciding the race in the 2008 Presidential election. They rationalize this fact by saying that only voting in groups or in communities have the ability to decide a race. Another reason that economists do not value voting is that in some cases not voting is in itself voting. For showing that you believe that all of the candidates are not fit for the position that they are running for, then you are still voicing your opinion by saying this. Another reason that economists do not like voting is that even if the majority of the people favored one candidate for a proposed election, they still have little influence on who is chosen. This is because people believe that wealthy, high-up people are the only votes that count. It is very possible that who the majority votes for does not win the position. A final reason that economists believe that you should not vote is the opportunity cost. You could be doing anything else as opposed to going in and voting for a position. By not voting, there is a very low opportunity cost because you are not losing anything if you do not vote.
4. After reading these four articles, I believe that everyone of voting age should not go to the polls and vote for a candidate. It gives people the ability to express their views more easily. People can go out and say that they did their “civic duty” by voting for a candidate for whatever election. Yet at the same time, people don’t have to go to the polls because they feel that their vote is not necessary, and it is also a form of expressing their view. I feel like everyone could feel like they have the ability to vote if they made another option at the polls saying that the person feels like no candidate would fit the job.
Mohammed S.
1) One of the main reasons why so many Americans feel strongly about voting is because of some of the elections that have been decided by a single vote. Another reason would be that it is constantly said that voting is a civic duty of the American public.
2) This article mentions an enfranchisement lottery that would pick randomly pick a group of registered voters and tell them unbiased information relevant to the election. This "jury" would then vote for the President. The purpose of this would be to ensure that the people who vote are informed about the candidates as well as the issues.
Gary Gutting, the writer, later mentions that this wouldn't be practical due to the large opposition it would face from the public. The United States had a long struggle to ensure that everyone would have the right to vote regardless of economic status, race, and gender so people would not be willing to give up these rights too easily. Instead he comes up with the idea of having an unofficial jury of educated voters who would discuss the election and vote in the few weeks preceding the election in hopes of having the quality of the presidential debates raised.
3) One reason why an economist would suggest not voting is because they find it to be a waste of time without having any actual payoff.
Another reason would be that a lot of people are uninformed which may lead to people voting against their own interests. In "The Ethics of Voting," Jason Brennan argued that poorly informed people have the duty to not vote.
Lastly, an economist might suggest that people shouldn't vote because their vote won't have any actual impact on the results. In the 2008 election it was found that the average voter had a 1 in 60 million chance of deciding the race. With a nearly 0% chance of impacting the election, no clear benefit of voting can be seen.
4) I believe that every citizen of voting age should vote even though a single person can't have a large impact on their own. This is because there are specific demographics of people, such as voters aged 18-29 and those with less education, that tend to vote less frequently than others. If a larger portion of these demographics voted then they could have an impact on the election because people in the same demographics tend to share similar political views.
Zach B.
1) One reason why I believe people feel so strongly about voting is because of the social incentive. For the individual to make it look like he wants change, he would make it a point to cast his vote. If people were to see the individual voting, they would possibly take him seriously when listening to his opinions. Furthermore, his argument when his undesirable candidate is elected becomes validated since he took the time out of his day to vote, whereas someone who did not vote who complains about the candidate would be shut down when told that he didn’t vote. The second reason why people care about voting is the “what if?” cliché. Although the expression applies to anything, it most certainly applies to voting. A person may feel obligated to vote because he believes that his one vote could matter. If he doesn’t vote, it may lead to wondering “what if” his undecided vote may have decided the outcome. Even though there is a small chance of one vote altering an election as stated in The New York Times article “Why Vote?” it will never be known if one vote truly mattered if the individual decides not to vote.
2) The main conclusion reached in “Should Everybody Vote?” opens up a different perspective on how voting should work. From the article, the reader can walk away knowing that his vote may not matter as much as it is perceived to be. In addition, it is possible that the majority’s vote does not matter as much as the select few, which consists of the wealthy. The article also states that in a perfect voting situation, it would be best if the individuals were informed of the election from unbiased news outlets. This would produce the most efficient turnout, since it is believed that people are either uninformed or rather informed by a biased medium.
3) One reason why economists suggest that people should not vote is because one person’s vote has a virtually impossible chance of affecting the election outcome. According to “Your Vote Doesn’t Count,” since out of the thousands of state elections only seven elections were decided on a single vote, the probability of affecting an election single-handedly is slim. Another reason to not vote is the cost of time included with voting. Compared to the amount of influence one vote makes, a person could be more productive with his time doing other things than taking the time to vote. The third reason why economists suggest people should not vote is if the person is not fully informed. If the uninformed person decides against voting, it statistically increases the value of other people’s vote who have further knowledge of the candidates. This would make everyone else’s vote more significant.
4) I believe that not every citizen of voting age should vote. While society may perceive an individual not voting as lazy, in reality he silently made a difference. The person’s uncast vote helped increase the value of everyone else’s vote. While this may give more power to the uninformed voters, it gives more power to those that are informed. It also helps create a less bias vote turnout. People should not feel obligated to vote, rather they should feel obligated to become informed about the election: this would then inspire people to get out and vote. If a person is not informed, he could use his time that would have been used voting in a more productive way.
Cory Z.
1. One reason why I believe that people feel so strongly about voting is that people view voting as a civic duty that, as citizens, we should all participate in. The United States is a representative democracy, which means that it is led by people whom the citizens elect. If people don’t vote, then that goes against the very ideals that our country was built upon. People believe that in order to utilise our freedoms to the maximum, we must vote. Another reason why people feel so strongly about voting is that it promotes a sense of community and collectivism. Because it is a civic duty that everyone should do, voting serves to bring changes based on what the public wants, and the public must all vote in order to voice its opinion. Especially in smaller communities, not voting may be seen as not being a good citizen. Voting is the social norm in our country, so going against that could lessen one’s social image.
2. The main conclusion reached in “Should Everybody Vote?” is the compromise between having every citizen being able to vote and having only informed and educated citizens being able to vote. One argument is that everyone should be able to vote, as that is what women suffragists and abolitionists had fought so hard for. Citizens’ right to vote should not be limited by how educated they are about politics, some argue. On the flip side, other people believe that only educated voters should be able to vote. The solution that was presented was to create somewhat of a jury composed of several thousand people, encompassing all races, social classes, and opinions. These people would listen to presentations and debates from all parties, effectively becoming well-educated about all candidates. We would try to select a group of people that would represent the population of the United States as closely as possible, so this group’s decision could accurately reflect how the entire country would vote. The compromise that was discussed was that there should be an unofficial jury a few weeks in advance of the election, where the same process would occur. This would help educate the entire population, as coverage from this jury would “raise the quality of debate in the final weeks of the campaign.” Many people would be able to learn from supporters and debaters who argue their points during this phase. As the jury votes can very effectively sway the country’s votes, debaters will be motivated to argue as effectively as possible.
3. One reason why economists suggest that people not vote is that not voting can be a form of voting. When people don’t vote, it is a way of voicing their opinions. If someone feels like none of the candidates are qualified, abstaining from voting can indicate what they think. One point that was brought up was that there should be an option that says “None of the candidates.” Another reason why economists suggest that people not vote is that it is a waste of time. Weighing the marginal costs of losing time versus the marginal benefits of a little gratification, logically it seems like there is no benefit in voting. Two economists analyzed 56,000 Congressional and state elections, of which only 10 were determined by a single vote or tied. Therefore, the chances of your single vote affecting the outcome of the election is nearly impossible, even less when you increase the scale of the election to something like the Presidential Election. A third reason why economists suggest that people not vote is that many people are uneducated and therefore cannot make rational decisions regarding the candidates. One philosopher argued that these people “have a duty not to vote.” Whether or not it is better to have more votes or fewer, but more educated votes, is debatable. However, many people believe that only those who are well informed about candidates and issues should be able to vote.
4. After reading the articles, I believe that not every citizen of voting age should vote. Firstly, I think that the marginal benefit of a little gratification over completing your civic duty does not outweigh the time...
Mike P1
1) People may feel so strongly about voting in a negative way due to the fact that it takes time and effort to physically go cast a vote. In today’s high speed daily routine, anything that could interfere with anybody’s free time is looked at as a hassle. On the contrary, some also believe that you must go show your face at the polls and hand in a ballot to truly consider yourself a “good citizen”.
2) Although many people believe that their vote doesn’t matter, it’s not just the physical action that counts, it’s also the thought behind voting that matters. The belief that the community is working together to help make decisions is also of great importance. Groups of randomly chosen representatives could be chosen to place votes in place of the entire community, but that would strip citizens of their democratic rights, for they would no longer have direct say in the government. It is not necessarily the actual vote that matters the most, it may be the mental comfort that every citizen is guaranteed their basic rights to voice their opinions through votes.
3) Some believe that voting isn’t worth it simply because a person’s vote won’t matter when it actually comes to the election. In addition, others also believe that it is a waste of time to go to the polls and vote, just for the sake of a “civic duty” and being able to say that “I voted”. Voting also may make people believe that they now are entitled to an opinion that everyone must listen to because they have voted. Sometimes choosing not to vote can say just as much as actually voting does.
4) I do not believe that everybody at the voting age should vote. I feel this way because most of the votes wouldn’t matter in the first place, as well as the fact that most of the voters likely don’t have the political intelligence to make a valid/reasonable decision with their vote. For example, a new 18 year old might go vote for the next president this upcoming November, just so they can go to their friends and tell everyone that they voted.
Ryan M
1. One reason that people feel so strongly about voting is that it's one of the few ways a normal citizen can participate in politics. Many people don’t have the economic means to run for political office. Many people also don’t want the responsibility of holding political office. Therefore they feel that the easiest way is to vote for people who hold political views that are similar to theirs. Voting doesn’t require a lot of time and work yet it can have a huge impact on your country. Another reason people feel strongly about voting is that it is a right that some fought very hard for. The colonists weren’t able to vote on any issue and they couldn’t select who governed them. Many colonists gave their lives so that the people could vote for their representatives.Many Americans also gave their life so that African Americans could vote. Also many women in the early 1900s fought extremely hard for the right to vote. Therefore people feel that they could honor these people's sacrifice by voting.
2. The main conclusion of the article is that everyone should not vote. The author proposes having a national jury that would meet 1 to 2 weeks before the election and would be given important information. These people would be the only people that are allowed to vote in the election. The author believes that there are many people who aren’t informed about the candidates in elections. He believes that these people shouldn’t vote because they are very uninformed. The author believes that only people informed about the election should be able to vote. Therefore he proposes the jury idea.
3. One reason that economists think that you should not vote is that your vote doesn’t really count. Using the poll results from 2008, an economist found that a randomly selected vote deciding a national election is 1in 60 million. In a key state, a chance of a randomly selected vote deciding an election is 1 in 10 million. These statistics are used to show how little a single person’s vote counts. Your vote will probably not decide any election and therefore it isn’t really important to vote. Another reason people shouldn’t vote is that many voters are uninformed. Although one vote doesn’t effect an election that much, a lot of uninformed voters can have a big effect on elections. Economists say that uninformed voters can lead to unfair, unjust, and bad outcomes. They say that if you consider yourself to be uninformed you shouldn’t go and vote. Another reason economists say you shouldn’t vote is that you will still be able to affect politics. A common theme is that if you don’t vote you cannot complain about issues. But what an economist said is that complaining is as important as voting. One doesn’t need to vote in order to complain about their government.He even makes that argument that complaining has more value than a single vote. A vote isn’t likely to have much of an impact while speaking out can cause a lot of change.
4. I think that every citizen should vote in elections. The right for ALL citizens of the United States to vote was a right that took a lot of work to establish. Many people gave their lives so that we could vote. To commemorate and honor the sacrifices many Americans made, we should use the right they fought for. Civil rights leaders and women’s rights leaders fought their entire lives so that we could all vote. The least we could do is use the right they fought for. Another reason I believe people should vote is that it is one of the simplest, yet effective, ways to participate in government. Although a single person's vote may not have an impact, a collective group could certainly sway an election. If a group doesn’t have the time or means to hold office, they could gain political power by voting for people who will represent them and their ideas. Voting is one of the most important ways for the common man to participate in our government.
Gregory G.
I believe American citizens believe so strongly about voting because representation is the foundation of our country and they truly believe that their vote is impactful. When the Revolutionary War broke out, the main reason was the colonists’ anger with Britain’s refusal to allow direct representation of the colonists in parliament. This being said, whenever voting is brought up today, the strong opinions are based upon this national pride Americans have in the founding of their country. Along with this, Americans feel like if they vote, their opinion is being heard. Whether or not a single vote actually matters is irrelevant because putting out your opinion and knowing it’s being counted is enough for Americans.
The main conclusion that is reached in “Should everybody vote?” is that an unofficial jury should be chosen by a group regarded as “highly educated”, such as top tier universities, and this jury submits their votes weeks before everyone else. The results of this jury would be released before the general public votes, and American citizens would be able to see and discuss the results. Debates would be centered around the opinions of the jury as these men and women will hold a substantial influence in the political world.
Three reasons why economists don’t believe it is worth it to vote is that since your single vote basically has no merit, economists believe voting is a waste of your time, effort, and productivity. Economists point to how a single vote is rarely ever a difference maker in an election. With this in mind, economists point to how you could be spending your time doing other things that would be much more worth your time. Time is money and doing something that won’t even matter in the long run is not worth it according to economists.
I don’t believe every citizen of age should vote. My opinion has nothing to do with the fact that it may be a waste of time/money. The facts are that many people have little to no actual knowledge on who/what they are voting for. Those that make impulse decisions based off of fabricated ideas are hurtful to elections. I know this goes against a lot of typical American ideals; however, the truth is that not every citizen of age is nearly competent to vote.
1) Explain two reasons why you believe that people feel so strongly about voting.
People sometimes feel like voting is a civic duty. They are under the belief that voting is good for society and by not voting, they are letting their society down. Other times, people vote because they think their vote matters more than it actually does. In addition, in our democracy, people often think that voting is their only way of participating in government. If a voter feels strongly about an issue, he would want to vote for a candidate that support his viewpoint on that issue as a way of being involved in bringing about change on that issue in government.
2) Explain the main conclusion that is reached in the article "Should everybody vote?"
How we currently conduct elections is flawed. Some people believe that our country is in fact, an oligarchy. They think that the upper class and wealthy corporations influence politics more than the votes of the general population. Whether or not this is true, everyone being is allowed to vote is a flawed part of the system. Many voters are poorly informed of the issues and don’t really know what exactly they are voting for. The author suggests that voting should be like jury duty. Randomly selected people are educated about candidates and after they have listened to all the information, they then make an informed vote, whereas a common person may have voted blindly or based on superficial factors. This system also means that an individual’s vote is worth much more than before.
3) Explain 3 reasons why economists suggest that people should NOT vote.
It is a waste of resources. One has to spend the time and other costs such as car fuel to physically go and vote. The chance the one vote will affect the outcome of the election might as well be zero. Out of 40,000 state legislative elections, only seven were decided by one vote. Jason Brennan proposed a hypothetical scenario where the election of a particular candidate would lead to a GDP increase of 0.25% and the election was extremely close. He calculated the value of one vote to be an infinitesimally small fraction of a penny. Is that really worth the time spent voting? Some people also don’t have a strong enough opinion to vote. They are either not educated enough, or simply don’t care enough to have an opinion one way or another. Not voting in itself can also be a way of voting. Not voting means that you don’t support any of the choices. However, it is hard to distinguish someone who feels that way from someone who just forgot to or didn’t care enough to vote.
4) After reading the articles, do you believe that every citizen of voting age should vote? Why or why not?
I do not believe that every citizen of voting age should vote. I do, however, believe that everyone of age that is educated politically and who knows what he wants done should vote. Of course, one vote doesn’t really mean much. The problem is when a large number of people don’t vote because they believe their vote doesn’t matter. Now there are many people who don’t get their issues heard because they all believed that their vote doesn’t matter. To prevent this problem from happening, it makes sense for all the politically educated people to vote because they are more likely to know what’s better than the common person that isn’t politically educated.
I believe that one of the reasons why people feel so strongly about voting is because people feel that others didn't have the luxury to have a vote and be heard in society, so they fought so we could be able to vote and have a say in our government. People feel like they're not being good citizens if they don't cast a vote and that they take for granted the ability to vote. Also that it was a right that we had to have given to us, and a right that others worked for and that that right shouldn't be taken for granted. But also that because of this feeling, people have been made to believe that you aren't a good citizen if you don't vote, and that voting is mandatory to be a good citizen. People have been drilled to believe that voting is mandatory weather or not you like any of the candidates or not, or if you are educated about each candidate or not.
The main conclusion in "Should everyone vote" is that some people possibly shouldn't vote because they don't fully know about what each candidate stands for, and that people may not have time to become educated on such topics and shouldn't base their vote on a few comments they read online. The article basically said that people who are educated about the candidates and who know they want to vote should feel free to. But on the other hand, there should be an option for voters who don't like either of the candidates, instead of people just not showing up altogether. The author mentions that each person feels that their vote has within their community, even if it doesn't hold weight by itself, and that one group of votes within a community can hold weight. The author ends up saying that no, not everyone is cut out to vote and that an individual vote may not matter much but a group of votes can matter a lot.
One reason why economists say you shouldn't vote is because they say that the odds of your vote making any sort of a major difference is very very slim to none at all, therefore not making it worth the time and effort that was spent going to cast your vote. In the past 100 years there has only been one case where the Congressional election has been decided by one vote. Also, that people who don't like either of the candidates shouldn't have to not cast a vote at all, or pick the better of two evils. Additionally, people who are not well informed about the candidates shouldn't be guilted into voting because they might not be basing their vote on real facts, but rather what other people have said or things that may not be factual.
I think people should vote if they want to, but shouldn't feel pressured to vote if they believe that they don't have a totally true understanding of the candidates and what they believe in. If people are well informed about the policies that candidates are preaching, then they should feel free to make an effort and help promote change within the country.
Nick M.
1) People feel so strongly about voting because its the only way they feel they can impact the government or they believe that active participation in voting from everyone is pivotal to democracy. Without voters, we live in a dictatorship.
2)Should Everybody Vote comes to the conclusion that while voting is important in a democracy, our current system should be revised in order to create a more efficient and fair way of voting.
3)Economists recommend not voting because each individual vote is insignificant, you shouldn't waste he effort. Encouraging people to vote is deceptive because they could be using their time in better ways and you are most likely voting for someone based on stuff that isn't even true in the first place.
4)No, you should only vote if you have absolutely nothing better to do and everyone has something better to do: push to revise and improve the current voting system.
Stephen K.
1) One reason some people strongly support voting is that we are taught from a young age that this is our civic duty, which acts as a moral incentive. People are told by teachers and others in society that voting is the right thing to do, so they feel that they and everyone else needs to do this. A particularly strong aspect of this moral plea is the fact that it is so often tied to the military, thanks to people saying things like "soldiers died for your right to vote." This strengthens the moral incentive to make sure that not only do people feel like they're doing their duty when voting, they also feel disrespectful if they don't. A second reason people strongly believe in voting is that there is also the social incentive of being seen voting or saying you voted. Because of the social pressures created by the moral incentive of voting, people also feel like they not only have to vote, but have to be seen doing it so that others know they are moral as well. People like to be a part of something, and showing up to vote with the rest of the community is a good way for many people to feel socially active and morally right.
2) The main point that is reached in the article "Should Everybody Vote?" is that yes, voting should be open to the masses, but there needs to be a lot more informed decision making going on. The author points out the issue of uninformed and apathetic voting in today's political landscape and suggests a sort of highly informed jury to solve this problem. Of course, most citizens would not like losing the right to vote, so he proposes that instead of making the decision themselves, this jury should report their findings to the masses, acting almost like an advisor to the people. I like this idea because it would ensure both fair and informed electoral decisions without depriving people of the right to vote. The only problem I see with this system is that it might have unanticipated effects; when the jury decides on a candidate, the supports of that candidate might not show up to vote, assuming the victory is a sure thing, while the supporters of the other candidate might rally and vote because they know their votes are needed for their candidate to win.
3) Economists suggest that individuals should not vote for a few good reasons. The first is that in most cases, a single individual's vote doesn't matter. There are few enough elections decided by one vote to fit in a single webpage, and the odds of one's vote actually affecting an election are equatable to the odds of winning the lottery. This marginal benefit does not make up for the opportunity costs of voting, namely the time spent doing so. Another reason economists suggest people shouldn't vote is that in order to truly fulfill one's civic duty, a person needs not only to vote but also to spend time learning about the candidates in order to make an informed decision. This further increases the opportunity cost of voting without providing any sort of benefit. A last reason not to vote is that sometimes there is no candidate that a certain individual supports. Voting for a candidate that one doesn't support can feel wrong to a person, so people might feel a moral incentive to stay home from the polls in these election years.
4) After reading these articles, I don't think that everybody of voting age should be guilted into voting, but if one feels a desire to vote, that individual should be encouraged to do so. Voting has much higher costs than benefits for most individuals, so there is no real reason that they should have to go. Furthermore, anyone who would not want to vote is also probably not a very politically involved person, so forcing them to vote would only result in uneducated and/or apathetic votes that skew the overall result. Voting is best left to the politically active, who are knowledgable and passionate about the issues and candidates in order to make the best decisions possible.
1) I believe that people feel strongly about voting because throughout our history, the right to vote has been something long fought over. Universal suffrage was only achieved in 1965 when African Americans and other minorities obtained equal voting rights. Being able to vote is a freedom, and freedom is what out country was built on. People also feel strongly about voting because they feel like their vote is a deciding factor in the outcome of elections. While this more often than not is not the case, people still like their vote mattered.
2) The main conclusion in "Should everybody vote?" is that while everyone should in fact be allowed to vote, there should be some way of educating the public on the issues of the election. Something of a national jury was suggested, where a thousand or so people would meet and discuss the issues of the election. This would be broadcasted so people could be more informed on the election and make a more intelligent decision on whom they were voting for in the election.
3) Economists suggest that people should not vote for three reasons. The first being, that your vote will most likely not impact the outcome of the election. The amount of elections decided by 1 vote is minute compared to the amount of elections held. It is unlikely your vote will actually matter. Reason number two, is that the average voter is ill informed on the current issues and candidates. Some argue that only those who are properly educated in the issues should be allowed to have their voices heard, so that the election is not just swayed by a charismatic leader, or someone who is a good talker. Reason three is that many people only vote to be seen voting. Voting is seen as a civic duty, something everyone should do. If people are only voting so that they are seen voting, there really isn't a point. Their time could be much better spent doing something else.
4) After reading the articles, I have concluded that no, not everyone should vote. The average voter pays too little attention to the election to make a well informed decision. It would be better for the country as a whole to limit who can and cannot vote. Perhaps if there was some sort of test to take when you went voting that quizzed you on current issues, and if you scored high enough you could vote. I disagree with what many of the articles said about votes not mattering, because if everyone thought their vote didn't matter, no one would vote, and that would be a larger issue.
Victoria S.
1.) I think that two reasons that people vote include societal pressure and a sense of partisanship. People believe that if they vote, they are showing loyalty to the party to which they support. Since the right to vote was such a hard-fought struggle for so many people, particularly women and minorities, many may feel pressured by said groups to go out and act on their right, lest they be viewed as ungrateful. In addition, people may feel guilty from their political parties--if they don’t vote, they are inherently handing the victory to the other side.
2.) The main conclusion reached in the article “Should Everybody Vote?” is that since a lot of people don’t vote, a good hypothetical solution is to take a random sample of a jury of sorts from the eligible voters pool, educate them on important issues, and have them vote in lieu of the entire population. Since it would be controversial at best, the author suggests instead to have this group meet shortly before the actual election and cast their votes to simulate what the interests of the nation would be.
There are several reasons why economists don’t think that people should go out and vote. 3.) One reason is that voting wastes time and productivity for a person to have to give up in their day to go to a place where they can vote, making the opportunity cost too high. With that time and gas money, they could’ve worked or had an enjoyable time. In addition, one person’s vote is extremely unlikely to truly have an influence on an election, as most margins in election are too large to be influenced by the votes of those who remain on the sidelines. Lastly, there is no financial incentive for people to vote, as monetary bribes are now illegal.
4.) Even after reading the articles, I do believe that every citizen of voting age should vote. However, for the cynics out there, I do believe that there should be an option on a voting ballot that indicates displeasure with both candidates. Although it does take time and effort, I still think that it is important that people let their voices, however apathetic, be heard. Even if it has no effect, other politicians should still get an idea about demographics and what they want to prepare for future elections. There should also be more of a spotlight put on third party candidates, so that instead of being faced with the prospect of voting for “the lesser of two evils,” people are more aware of a completely different option all together.
1. I believe that people feel so strongly about voting because many feel that their civic duty to contribute their opinion in deciding who will run our country at all levels of government, including local, state, and federal. Many people also feel that their votes have an impact on the outcome of the elections they vote in making them feel important and included in how the government runs.
2. The main argument of “Should Everybody Vote” includes the idea that our voting system should be altered, only to better inform the public. When the idea of voting was first implemented in the U.S. the general public was seen as uninformed on the election and thus the electoral college was put in place. However, even in the age of technology some voters are still uninformed. “Should Everybody Vote” proposes the idea that a randomly chosen jury representing every background and thought process of the diverse citizens of the U.S. be put in place in order to educate the public.
3. One reason economists feel that voters shouldn’t vote is that voting is simply not worth it to the voter. The opportunity cost is too high for the voter who would be wasting time, energy, and money on an act that realistically has little impact. Economists also believe that people should not vote because there is about a in 60 million chance that a single vote will decide an election. This statistic shows that the general public opinions will always be heard through communities of voters with the same interests and beliefs, however the individual will not directly be heard. Lastly, economists believe that too many citizens are uneducated on the topics and policies regarding elections. Ultimately this will lead to uneducated voting communities, which do have an impact in elections, that will put a person in power who will not represent the true beliefs and wants of the public.
4. After reading these articles I believe that every educated person of age should still vote. Those who are uneducated should not vote because they could possibly misrepresent themselves. However those who are educated should still represent themselves in elections to be a part of voting communities because if everyone followed the ideology that voting is not worth it then nobody would vote. Voting communities decide elections and without the individual there are no communities.
Post a Comment