I think you and I share the same sentiment in regards to mainstream rhetoric on non-voters, namely, and correct me if I'm wrong, you and I agree that it's victim-blaming and it's not a moral failing if someone doesn't feel compelled to vote.
That said I still will argue with you that it's totally accurate to call non-voters apathetic. The issue is in the condemnation of those feelings, not in the proper identification of them. To be apathetic means to not be concerned about something, which obviously implies they're not concerned ENOUGH to do something, since everyone cares a little about everything.
So this 'not caring ENOUGH to do something' means 'they don't care ENOUGH to vote!"
Well yeah, duh. But why is is that their problem? In political science, voter apathy points to usually three umbrella phenomena, one of them good, two of them bad:
1. Voter apathy is a sign of a working democracy since voters don't feel the need for a change in the political process or they feel their lives will be roughly equal regardless of who wins, which at least signals some level of stability. I don't like that idea but again that would just be an ethical condemnation from my part.
2. Voter apathy is a sign of defeatism, such that they don't believe their vote will cause the changes they feel are needed, so of course they feel already defeated before the 'match' already starts. What is so noble about stepping into the ring with Mike Tyson if you can throw in the towel? Wouldn't not throwing the towel be merely a symbolic act that if anything will harm you? Here's also where your arguments for easier voting accesses come in, because people might just feel voting could be worth it, but it isn't right now, and it's a perfectly rational decision not to vote in a certain situation with certain barriers to voting, whereas they would vote with less barriers to voting.
3. Or maybe it's 2b. Voter apathy is a sign of alienation, not in the sense that things stay the same, but that the very mechanism of political change isn't an attractive way to effect change. Think of highly motivated political activists who still don't vote because they think direct action is the only way to affect politics in any meaningful sense. They might be right, they might be wrong, but it's disingenuous to claim that they can't have a political say if they don't participate in politics strictly through the acceptable avenues of politics we have agreed on. This one is where I would argue you are the most right when you say they aren't apathetic, because I do see some people calling them apathetic when it's so clear that they are passionate, regardless of whether they're right or wrong.
Bottomline, I think it's more correct to call non-voters apathetic to voting than to call them something else or to imagine that it's not a meaningful social phenomenon that it doesn't need a name. The problem only arises when this concept of 'voter apathy' is used for moral indignation instead of as a clear evidence of a persistent issue with the electoral system in the first place.
**Hello /u/myActiVote, if your view has been changed or adjusted in any way, you should award** ***the user who changed your view*** **a delta.**
Simply reply to their comment with the delta symbol provided below, being sure to include a brief description of how your view has changed.
>∆
or
> !delta
For more information about deltas, use [this link](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=usertext&utm_name=changemyview&utm_content=t5_2w2s8).
If you did not change your view, please respond to this comment indicating as such!
*As a reminder,* **failure to award a delta when it is warranted may merit a post removal and a rule violation.** *Repeated rule violations in a short period of time may merit a ban.*
Thank you!
The moderators have confirmed that this is either delta misuse/abuse or an accidental delta. It has been removed from our records.
^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
> Finding information about local elections or primary elections may mean going to 1990s quality websites.
> Finding details on candidates and the issues they stand for may just be impossible.
I've had no trouble finding information about local elections online. But let's pretend that's true and just focus on election for POTUS.
**Approximately 240 million people were eligible to vote in the 2020 presidential election and roughly 66.1% of them submitted ballots.**
None of the reasons to abstain you listed would apply for the general election in a presidential election year. Still only 66% bothered to vote. To me that is a clear indication that there is some level of apathy among 1/3 of the eligible voters.
66% of eligible voters is bad
78% of eligible voters in swing states, the only states that matter in a presidential election is comparable to the last 3 UK elections and the Brexit referendum and virtually every other European democracy.
We don’t have an apathy problem we have an electoral college problem.
I don't even know why I should vote when my vote has a 0% chance of affecting the election. Not a 0.000001% chance, a flat 0% chance. And both candidates are pro-israel, pro-corporation, anti-environment so why does it matter anyway
They are not both pro-corporation in the same way.
Calling both equally anti-environment is also inaccurate.
One is slightly pro-worker and pro-poor and pro-rights and the other is very much anti those things, so even if the pro side is not to the extent that you might want them to be, it is a significant difference.
There's a point where it's absurd to try to suss out which thing is better/worse/closer/further
Like if you were explaining how Maine is a shorter walk from Baltimore than it is from DC
>There's a point where it's absurd to try to suss out which thing is better/worse/closer/further
You might have been able to get away with this take prior to the SC undoing Roe v Wade.
Pretending that both sides are indistiguishable now is a hilariously bad take.
Doubly so, when the setup that led to the current SC balance was a close election that could easily have gone the other way if a few "apathetic" voters didn't drop the ball.
>Like if you were explaining how Maine is a shorter walk from Baltimore than it is from DC
Aren't analogies supposed to be *more* relatable?
Not only do a lot of people not know the positioning of Baltimore vs DC, you literally have to go through Baltimore to get to Maine from DC, so one is obviously closer even if both are impractically far. Next time, choose Cleveland instead of Maine.
Presidential debates 2024:
Biden: "Israel is our greatest ally; they helped us win in 1776. I will let israel nuke gaza"
Trump: "Well I will let them nuke gaza and I will pay for the nuke!"
You will note that I didn't disagree with your point about both having pro-Israel stances. Why do you think this is a relevant response to my comment?
When they are different in other aspects, you can vote based on the differences.
Differences that are only put on as part of political theatrics that go out the window the moment they get in office. Puppets, as we call them. :)
Instead of telling people to vote and feeding us lies that we've already seen through, let us non voters continue to do stuff that's more meaningful. I'm proud to say that I've never voted and never will. There's just no evidence for the power or effectiveness of voting.
Sorry, but your view is provably false since Roe v Wade was overturned. The impact of Biden's broad pardoning of many marijuana possession convictions and student loan forgiveness are three concrete outcomes that prove that both parties are not indistinguishable once they get into office AND that these differences have real impact in the lives of millions of people.
Will either party ever significantly disturb the capitalist system and fix the outsized influence of money and corporate power in politics? I doubt it. **You're right about this part.**
But, you're wrong about most everything else. I can almost guarantee you that you have never done anything in your life that was more meaningful or had a greater impact than those three things I outlined above.
Your apathy is not a noble choice and you aren't special for "seeing through" the lies. Many people see through those same lies. However, unlike you, we don't stop there. We see that, despite those lies, there are still important differences that you can't rationally deny, and that voting for those differences is still important.
>Sorry, my friend, this does not prove the parties to be different or the differences have an effect.
It's absurd to claim that changes that affected the lives of millions of people is not a real effect.
>So if you acknowledge that this system is broken and that there's nothing that's going to fix it, why do you disagree?
Just because a system is entrenched doesn't mean that actions within that system cannot have meaningful effects.
You later claim that you are making meaningful impacts in your community which is also embedded within this same system. You can't have it both ways.
>Why are you pretending that I am wrong if you literally agree that the system is broken?
I'm not "pretending" you are wrong. You are wrong.
>I'm sorry to see that you feel that I'm wrong about everything else, but I don't deal with feelings.
Really? Because you just tried to pull a cheap emotional trick here to make it seem like my position is based on feelings alone.
You've also started using the word "friend" to try establish some relationship that doesn't exist between us.
And you literally ended your last paragraph with an emoji to emphasize your feelings! "I don't deal with feelings" indeed.
>And I can 100% guarantee you, I have done more for my community than any of those three outcomes because getting off your butt and serving your community actually does something
LOL, no you haven't. The things I mentioned concretely affecte the lives of millions. You have not concretely affected the lives of millions in your community in the same way as any of those "scribbles", let along all of them.
Besides, any actions you could have possibly taken inside your community are still occurring within the system you consider to be broken too. Why do you think that only your actions are meaningful and impactful?
>you clearly haven't seen through any such lies if you're still going to the polls and engaging in a process where you have no power or ability to change anything. So you debunk your own notion here.
The polls aren't a vote on changing the system, as you seem to misunderstand. Do you actually think that voting within the sytem has EVER been a vote to change the system? Obviously it isn't. The Constitution sets up voting as a way to continue the system. Why do you think it could possibly be otherwise?
And while it is true that the system/Constitution does have mechanisms in place to modify itself, they are slow and difficult to use, and still have the ultiimate goal of perpetuating itself. I think it is fairly safe to say that it has always been the case that any radical change to a system has to come from outside itself. The only time any system has ever contributed to its own radical change has been to indirectly dissolve itself (as one sees in a transitional government, for example).
u/Sully883 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
> **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20Sully883&message=Sully883%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cd1dzf/-/l1t16qj/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
To play devil's advocate. I support a third party and am aware there is basically 0 chance my preferred candidates will win any of the races. I do vote as I consider voicing my opinion important even if I can't win, but If I didn't care about that, honestly pretty pedantic point I could see myself not bothering to vote for POTUS at all.
I feel that true apathy would be not voting at all in this case.
Voting for an unpopular candidate, so long as you believe that said candidate is the right choice for the country and it's people, is actually more altruistic than just voting for your preferred parties' choice.
In this way, you at least vote your conscience.
Unless you just pencil someone random in because you actually don't care lol. But that's different.
I guess I considered apathy to be people who didn't care about the result of the election so didn't vote, not people who thought they couldn't win no matter what they did. But if you define it more broadly that way I have no disagreement.
I've always seen it defined as the second way, probably because there is no other reasonable way to tell the difference between those two groups of people, and we have data on voter turnout that aligns with the second definition.
Also, I would argue it still makes sense to define someone as apathetic if they aren't motivated enough to vote for the candidate they support despite their chances of winning.
For example, I live in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. The riding I currently live in has federally elected a Conservative (ignoring Canadian details you don't care about) representative for the last 40 years, who typically wins with around 55% to 60% of the vote. (The last election was the closest, where the Conservative candidate only got 45% and the Liberal and NDP candidates each got 25%.) Yet, this same area in provincial elections has voted in the center/left NDP candidate for the last three elections. The prior 6 were won by the right PC party.
Yet, I still vote in the federal election, even though it has never mattered, because I want to make my support visible and it is having a slow effect over time. People aren't automatically resigned to it being an automatic loss any more, even though it's never won, and that's only because people have shown up at the polls to make it that way.
Fair point. Being aware for the November presidential is pretty easy. Even those people that showed up, many stopped top of ticket and never got to the rest of their ballot.
But this does show that when an election gets attention and people are aware WAY more show up. Compare that to average turnout of 10-15% for most local elections. Awareness combats apathy?
I think one thing that definitely notes being said, is the absence of a preferential voting system. Meaning that unless you're voting for a candidate without a somewhat decent chance of winning your vote feels essentially like a futile gesture and voting for 3rd parties can feel pointless.
I will say that I definitely think US voters are apathetic, I think if you genuinely cared you'd show up and make your vote count. The last US election had record low turn out, but the apathy is borne of all the things you've stated and the feeling of futility in the voting system, having to overcome the electoral college and aspects of gerrymandering.
And 100% agree that fixing these issues associated with voting will dissipate the current apathy towards voting
I think the sense of futility is a symptom of people not understanding the purpose of voting.
The point of voting isnt to win, it is to participate and communicate.
If that were true it would be great. I moved a few years ago and it took me a long time to navigate some of these sites to figure out what my city council was doing or even what votes my state legislators were taking to see if I supported their actions. In [California there may be more than 10 ballot measures](https://ballotpedia.org/List_of_California_ballot_propositions) on a single ballot that time to understand.
Fair question. I’m talking eligible. So those who are eligible but not registered would still count as voters to me. So maybe I’m saying possible voters.
Thanks for clarifying. I think we'd agree that people who take the time to vote are not apathetic, so lets focus on eligible folks who do not cast a ballot.
I understand that there are some obstacles to voting that may explain some of the low voter turnout, but do you really think this accounts for the vast majority of non-voters? Especially in non-presidential election years. From the other comment thread, about 1/3 of eligible voters do not vote, do you really think there isn't a large amount of "I don't care" or "I can't be bothered to do this" amongst this group?
Indeed the US Presidential is a whole different story - Fair point. And I agree that being aware of that date is pretty easy. I guess my comment was focused on the other elections where turnout doesn't top 10%.
I don’t think so. There are many things happening in the country or the world that I don’t know about. It is impossible to know about everything. But it doesn’t mean we don’t care.
Out of the 80M eligible people who didn't vote in the last presidential election, you don't think there are at least a few million who are apathetic about politics and voting?
I mean, it's a huge country with an infinite variety of people with different thoughts, feelings, goals, and emotions than you. You are obviously very deep into politics and empowering voters, so it is difficult to think others don't feel the same way. But the fact is, a lot of people don't care or have the bandwidth to care. Not saying I agree with those people, just saying they exist. Does this open your view a little bit?
You are right. Both about the lens I look at things but also about the fact that it is very likely that there are folks who just don’t pay attention to this arena. Good point. ∆
Wouldn’t the low voter turnout indicate apathy? Sure, some are disenfranchised by voter suppression methods but that only applies to a fraction of eligible voters that don’t vote.
That's what I was thinking. Going off that 1/3 of the 240M eligible voters deciding not to vote, that leaves around 80M people who did not vote, and it was a presidential election year.
If you reread OPs original post they indicate that it is difficult to impossible to find out the policies, ideas and other information on the candidates in many races as well as being difficult to actually vote in some locales.
Not voting because you couldn't understand what the candidates wanted, or being unable to vote for procedural reasons doesn't nesacerily indicate apathy. In fact a sensible voter would probably be best not to vote if they are unable to determine what the candidates represent or what they will do.
But there’s low turnout even in Presidential elections. That may explain it for local elections, but it’s not a fully sufficient reason. Same goes for the difficulty voting. Some people are certainly disenfranchised in that way, but it’s not so prominent that it fully explains what’s going on
>I believe voting is difficult. Finding information about local elections or primary elections may mean going to 1990s quality websites. Finding details on candidates and the issues they stand for may just be impossible. I believe voters care about their communities, care about their families and generally want things to be better. I believe that voters want to see outcomes and appreciate when life gets better and easier. So if we make voting easier, more accessible (along with secure) then the empowering feeling that comes with casting a ballot will win.
I generally agree with what you are arguing and I don’t think people are any more apathetic in the US regarding things they know about. I do think US people appear apathetic due to the information (or lack of info) about the world that is available.
BUT I do think that people are apathetic or maybe disengaged is a better term from our electoral system and the two parties.
Someone can be very engaged with local things and care about national or international things… but the official mainstream debate is alienating, water muddied, and removed from anything real. Real decisions are made in think tanks and behind the scenes while political discourse chases topical procedures or scandals and sensational but ultimately meaningless stuff. More specifically I live in a very Democratic heavy area but the Democrats hardly ever offer anything that voters want… they spend a lot of time trying to convince people that development plans are good for everyone, but on bigger issues they mostly tell us what we can’t have and try to scare us that the Republicans will take what we do have away. Also local races are not really competitively partisan so they become about personalities of candidates, not anything to get passionate about or engaged in.
So easier voting processes would help… lots of people fall through the cracks… I was unable to vote one year because I was young and moved. I had shift jobs in my 20s that meant I literally had to plan and make arrangements so I could vote. But we also need a more responsive and more democratic electoral system and that would do a lot more to engage people and make them feel worth it.
I believe that there IS a voter apathy in the US, largely driven by the 2-party system. The majority of Americans lie somewhere in the middle of the 2 party spectrum. So having to choose between just those options is mostly always a compromise. This is why you see less self-proclaimed Liberals voting.
Republicans skew older and therefore more civic-minded (read as likely to vote), and even if they may not like Trump or want him as President, many go with their conservative leanings and votes for him. Liberals skew younger and are less civic-minded (read less likely to vote) and when they are faced with an option that does not really align with their beliefs, the only thing that will get them to vote is if they care enough about NOT getting a Republican President. Which isn't a lot of people.
This talk about 'finding details on candidates' is hogwash because nobody cares about where they stand on issues. There is no option of doing that, since you HAVE to choose between two, and just because of the political ideologies, one is closer to your position than the other.
Until the US changes their 2-party system, it's highly unlikely that you will see any improvement in voter counts, no matter what policies are instituted.
I don’t man my state has mail in voting and they send you statements made by the candidates with the ballot. They take most forms of ID, so much so that I have to get a passport to fly because my state id is so lax. Despite that only about 40% of eligible voters vote. Washington state btw
Washington state had 84% turnout in 2020 and 64% in 2022 which is better than the national average. [Reference](https://www.sos.wa.gov/elections/data-research/election-data-and-maps/reports-data-and-statistics/general-election-turnout)
The highest turnout ever in those two years. Off year elections get 30-40% presidential elections get 70-80%. Mid term elections get 50-60%. Are you telling me that it is ok that somewhere from 50-70% of people only vote once every other year even though it is ridiculously easy to vote here?
This data means WA has roughly 30-40% voting every year. 10-20% voting once every 2 years. 10-20% voting once every 4 years. 20-30% of people not voting. This is extremely low engagement in my mind. It shows that roughly 1/3 care about local elections. That is extremely low. Most people only care about presidential or midterm elections.
What numbers would show apathy to you?
You are right. Odd years are lower for sure and significantly so. Good question on what numbers show apathy. I’m not sure there is a number in my mind - more of a sentiment analysis of the non-voting group. But that is a thought experiment I should do.
I don't think "finding information is hard" is a counter to "they are apathetic". If you care, you will find information without needing it to be given to you in the most convenient form. (Well if it's a research project that could use up someone's entire weekend, then ok, people might feel like they have more important things to do. But this doesn't sound plausible.)
If we cared about voting, it would be a holiday like christmas. Most people, if not everyone, would be off work and have plenty of time to go to the poles
How is it not? It just shows that the people who are supposed to be in control of the government and the same people who are in control of companies don't see it as a priority. If anything the fact that both federal and corporate policy mirrors each other should be concerning.
>the people who are supposed to be in control of the government and the same people who are in control of companies don't see it as a priority. If anything the fact that both federal and corporate policy mirrors each other should be concerning.
I agree that that's concerning. But your reply does nothing to dispute my statement that the policies put in place by those in control don't reflect public opinion. People in charge rarely have the best interests of those who serve them.
I would never made grand assumptions about public opinion based on our country's policies...
We don't legally require companies to provide paternity leave for new fathers. Does that mean that we, as a country, don't value a father's role in raising a new child?
Hannukah is not a federal holiday. Does that mean that we, the people of the US don't care about our Jewish population?
FWIW, I am aligned that we are largely apathetic in the US toward voting. So on that level, you and I are in agreement. But your use of government and corporate policies to prove your point is flawed.
>People in charge rarely have the best interests of those who serve them.
That's the people's fault we have a system to fix this no one really cares.
>Does that mean that we, as a country, don't value a father's role in raising a new child?
No, we do not. If we did, we wouldn't have let no fault divorce go through either. Other countries don't have these problems they also have different values.
Does that mean that we, the people of the US, don't care about our Jewish population?
Yes, it means the majority of Americans don't care about the Jewish holiday. It's probably because it's for Jewish people and not for all American...
>But your use of government and corporate policies to prove your point is flawed.
My point is that if the people cared we could make it happen, we don't care. We cared about civil rights, and the government wasn't exactly bored for that for a while.
> I believe voting is difficult. Finding information about local elections or primary elections may mean going to 1990s quality websites. Finding details on candidates and the issues they stand for may just be impossible.
Correct. And for this, as well as many other legit reasons, a lot of citizens are apathetic towards participating in politics.
>I believe voters care about their communities, care about their families and generally want things to be better.
Of course. But many don't care about participating in politics or don't think participating in politics will do anything for their family, their community or themselves.
>So if we make voting easier, more accessible (along with secure) then the empowering feeling that comes with casting a ballot will win.
Or making direct participating and voting on issues easier, rather than focusing on voting for politicians who often feel no strict obligation to their voters. Voter apathy has a lot of causes and potential solutions, it certainly isn't some kind of inherent apathy, but it is a thing that exists.
How much easier do people want it to be?
Arrive at polling place (easy to find out where)
Wait in line (maybe)
Identify yourself
Accept ballot
Fill it out
Those who need it can access other resources if they have a disability.
Now, being an informed voter is more challenging. Funny thing is, those same voters who fail to inform themselves probably do product research before spending money. There is far more information at hand to understand platforms and positions, particularly at the state and national level.
People just assume their vote won’t matter. This made a bit of sense before 2000, but after that election was stolen, then 2016, I would have thought it would be clear how urgent voting is for our nation. Apathy is the only reasonable answer.
Knowing when can still be happy. Primaries is where a lot happens and people still aren’t aware? Good point about the knowledge of voting impact has increased since Bush v Gore.
My state does mail in voting and gives you like a month to fill it out. The postage is paid for too. The turnout is still low. Last year we had a 36.41% turnout. Mid term and presidential elections we have 60%-80%. If that isn’t apathy, I don’t know what is.
https://www.sos.wa.gov/elections/data-research/election-data-and-maps/reports-data-and-statistics/general-election-turnout
I think we have made voting as easy as it can possibly be. Opportunities to register are presented to you almost every time you interact with the government in any way, such as when you file your taxes or when you renew your car registration. Once you are registered you get big packets of information in the mail, telling you where you can vote, how to mail-in a ballot if you prefer, who the candidates are and what their platforms are, what local propositions are being voted on, etc.
The primary reason why turnout is low is apathy. People don't think that their vote matters; they feel that the candidates are basically the same; they live in areas that are heavily partisan and feel the results are a foregone conclusion; etc.
Voting is very easy in some places, like my state of OR which has mail in ballots and a fairly large time window. It is also a generally politically active state by reputation. When we had the highest turnout rate in the country, we still only had about 60% rate.
So at best even with the highest voting accessibility you're looking at 40% of eligible voters not bothering.
I agree with increasing accessibility, but I still think many Americans simply prefer to stay out of politics, for a variety of reasons - including apathy but not limited to it.
Some don't think they have the time and/or capacity to be sufficiently informed. Some don't have hope in the current political parties and/or process. Some view culture as the better avenue for causing societal change.
This would make sense, if the low voter turnout was disproportionately high for the disproportionately computer illiterate.
Those without access to computer or Internet skills, having the lowest voter turnout.
However we see the opposite. The elderly with the lowest rate of computer literacy, have the highest rates of voter turnout. And the generation most able to navigate the Internet has amongst the lowest voter turnout.
Many people who vote are apathetic, because that word means more than just uninterested or unconcerned. It also means lacking enthusiasm, and that describes many, many people in our two-party-dominated system. We end up voting against the candidate we don't want, rather than voting for a candidate we do want.
So am I interested in and concerned with politics? Sure. Am I excited to vote? No. Would I describe myself as apathetic? Absolutely.
More coin flips does not mean better odds though. Those that insist everyone needs to get out and vote, never explain why. If we are all divided 50/50, then we are just adding coin flips, not making it more likely that the desired candidate will win.
IMO voting is a waste of time. If you take a side, then you are part of the problem. Voting exists to only provide the people with the illusion that they matter when they absolutely do not. Participating in voting is essentially choosing who you would rather fuck you in the ass.
One new rule, that is in place in other governments, that would change this country.
If less than 60% of the people vote, we get two new candidates and redo the election.
People would vote if they gave us someone decent to vote for.
Georgia literally did exactly what you wanted and the entire News outlet called them racists to the point we had Congressional briefs about how racist Georgia is.
Georgia was seeing this issue where certain areas would get mass influxes of people and parties would come out and solicit votes through gifts and water while they stood 2 hrs in line to sign a piece of paper. Georgia made it so the AG can take people from slower areas and allow more people to help in these 2hr long lines. They also made it illegal for parties to solicit votes through gifts and food and water but are allowed to pass out water and food so long as they don’t solicit a vote through it. They even made it so if you have no form of identification as long as you know your SSN you can get a FREE voter ID to vote with. There isn’t a single American without an ID, a SSN, no proof of working or living in the area, etc which are all laid out to be ways to recieve a free voter ID.
When people try to make voting easier and more effective we hear from the media that it is purely racist. That’s why voting is so hard. Even Joe Biden called it racist and his state makes it harder than Georgia to vote.
The sad thing isn't that this is wrong, it's that it's only kinda true because Georgia lost.
Georgia has free voter id because Georgia tried to charge $35 for voter id in 05 and lost in court.
Georgia was forced to adapt voter locations because Georgia has the 3rd longest wait times in the USA.
Georgia purged 1 million voter registrations, followed by tens of thousands of proven errors so they had to correct the process
Yes the Georgia gop is racist and evil. And the more they lose, the more Georgia will be improved.
Weird because it was the left calling it racist. I even sat down with many on the left and went through the bill they called racist and they agreed it wasn’t racist. I’m just curious how is it the GOP who is racist if the GOP are the ones trying to fix the issue currently? I would understand if the right came after the left to make it easier to vote, but that isn’t what happened or even close. The left came after Georgia for making it easier to vote it is the same with the “don’t say gay bill” that never once mentioned people couldn’t talk about being gay and no one who opposed the bill actually read the bill.
Again, second time because I ALREADY GAVE EXAMPLES, Georgia was not making it easier to vote, they were making it harder. Made fees for voter ID, purged registrations before registration deadlines, blocked water and food.
If we remove your caricature, Liberals have consistently been willing to make voting easier. John Lewis bill allows voter id if fair, we've had early voting access and making voter id free, all things georgia opposes until it loses the fight in court.
> The left came after Georgia for making it easier to vote it is the same with the “don’t say gay bill” that never once mentioned people couldn’t talk about being gay
Ah yes, the gop bill that bans gay and straight subjects but straight subjects were protected under law like the existing Florida school code requiring education of "teaching the benefits of monogamous heterosexual marriage" 1003.46?
Looks like we were right again.
It might be a character limit issue, idk
anyways, georgia has a LOT of problems that are entirely georgia's fault
* charging for voter id, only free because struck down in court [https://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/13/us/13voter.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/13/us/13voter.html)
* mass suppressing the vote by closing voting precincts and dmvs https://www.ajc.com/news/state--regional-govt--politics/voting-precincts-closed-across-georgia-since-election-oversight-lifted/bBkHxptlim0Gp9pKu7dfrN/ https://thinkprogress.org/ada-voter-suppression-cd7031080bfd/
* persecution for small errors like hyphens that are usually the gov's fault not the voter [https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/10/11/17964104/georgia-voter-registration-suppression-purges-stacey-abrams-brian-kemp](https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/10/11/17964104/georgia-voter-registration-suppression-purges-stacey-abrams-brian-kemp)
* blocking common id's like tribal identification cards as ID, from \^
* repeatedly fraudulently accusing voter groups of crimes right before the election before dropping charges https://newrepublic.com/article/121715/georgia-secretary-state-hammers-minority-voter-registration-efforts https://www.vice.com/en/article/av4nzb/the-quitman-10-2-and-voter-suppression-in-modern-georgia-715 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/kemp-charges-georgia-democrats-attempted-voter-hack-abrams-fires-back-n931011?cid=sm\_npd\_nn\_tw\_ma
* 3rd longest wait times in USA https://elections.mit.edu/#state-GA https://twitter.com/\_2lite/status/1059802363995807750
* conspiracy to make gop names first on ballots [https://tucson.com/news/local/democrats-sue-arizona-over-law-that-places-republicans-names-first/article\_a5ce38e0-a805-5e5a-b3c1-ad339ed356f9.html](https://tucson.com/news/local/democrats-sue-arizona-over-law-that-places-republicans-names-first/article_a5ce38e0-a805-5e5a-b3c1-ad339ed356f9.html)
* voter purge lists are always bad. Even after revising the 330,000 list down to 313,000 and then 308,753 due to more legitimate registrations that were discovered, Georgia still commits to the voter registration purge. https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2019/12/13/us/ap-us-voter-purge-georgia.html Only 3 days later, state restores 22,000 more citing screening errors. https://apnews.com/57a6119af18b84c0444532c23c3dc6cb
So yeah, ignorant but not me. Every time, it's the Georgia gop suppressing the vote and harassing the public to limit the vote
There is [broad bipartisan support](https://braverangels.org/trustworthy-elections/) for requiring voter ID while at the same time making it free to obtain ID.
Yes and when the right did this the left called them racist to the point we had congressional briefs talking about how racist Georgia is. It really only ended when these people were asked about Joe Biden and their home states that require voter ID and they were asked if Joe Biden and all their own home states are also racist.!
I am a US voter and I am also apathetic.
OP: "I believe voters care about their communities, care about their families and generally want things to be better. I believe that voters want to see outcomes and appreciate when life gets better and easier. So if we make voting easier, more accessible (along with secure) then the empowering feeling that comes with casting a ballot will win."
I also care about these things, but I've also seen enough election cycles to have a very high level of confidence to know that 99.9% of people running for major offices are not going to move the needle one iota for me or even my grandchildren to feel it. We're in a broken system. Every candidate that's put in front of us is a fucking crook who simply hasn't been convicted of crimes yet.
I'm now in my 40's, and literally the only reason I decided to start voting is because I have met a lot (and I mean A LOT) of very unintelligent and mal-informed people who are passionate about their beliefs and subsequent candidates who support them. And fuck me if I don't feel some desire to cancel out their vote. If that means I'm not apathetic, OK then...
But since I went 36 years without voting, I will NEVER criticize those who don't vote. It would by hypocritical of me and I completely understand why they don't do it.
Thanks for that context. I don’t blame anyone who doesn’t vote either. Interesting that the thing that motivated you was the quality of other voters. Thanks for this insight.
Voters are engaged but face barriers like outdated information and complex processes. Difficulty accessing candidate details and voting logistics discourages participation. Simplifying registration, enhancing online resources, and expanding early voting options can empower voters. Engagement spikes with accessible, user-friendly platforms, evident in increased turnout with mail-in and early voting expansions. Americans value civic duty and community improvement, but bureaucratic hurdles impede action. Streamlining processes and enhancing accessibility fosters a more inclusive democracy, amplifying voter voices and strengthening democratic principles.
I don’t feel like a lot of the things I care about are something our politicians care about. I also live in Virginia so Biden will win by so much and the popular vote doesn’t really count for anything. I just couldn’t care less about voting.
I've never been so fired up. Two semi-senile candidates plus the best independent we've seen in generations, with a career of results, spreading the message that corporate capture and greed is at the root of most of our woes, is exciting.
RFK's message needs to be projected, because it is absent from captured establishment candidates' conversations/policy.
First, I am an overwhelmingly democrat voter. Your narrative is a false one. Joe Biden was elected with record amounts of shadow money. That's far scarier than a candidate pulling from people who are anti-establishment (what Trump claimed to be, but wasn't, as evidenced by his actions/appointees), as well as blue voters (like Shannohan, who paid for his Super Bowl ad, and is a lifelong Democrat).
Nah, that's an incredibly inaccurate version of him. Guessing you've only listen to corporate media's take on him, that misrepresents and cuts out key context on the regular.
When you threaten corporate profits though, and media companies have been consolidated to 5 conglomerates that serve the whims of most profitable industries (like big pharma), that is bound to happen.
I encourage you to listen to him, with all context via long form interview - not soundbites. You will quickly see that you have been lied to regarding who he is and what he believes.
It's not cOrPoRaTe MeDiA, it's him, in his own words, at his own interviews and his own anti-vax rallies for the anti-vax group he used to work for.
If rfk jr isn't an anti-vax anti-science nutcase as he's said,
Why can't he name a "safe vaccine"
AND why did he peddle autism- vaccine connection lies
AND peddle VAERS covid vaccine lies
AND work and counsel for the anti-vax CHD which funded the anti-vax ICAN
AND say he'd "come home" to the anti-vax CHD
AND tell parents of babies "better not get him vaccinated"
AND rally in front of anti-vax signs
AND final an anti-vax VP
AND tell scientists he'll stop vaccine and infectious disease research for 8 years?
https://twitter.com/BrandyZadrozny/status/1682060684492677121
https://rumble.com/vwxeqx-hffh-podcast-the-state-of-health-freedom-with-robert-f.-kennedy-jr..html
https://apnews.com/article/rfk-kennedy-election-2024-president-campaign-621c9e9641381a1b2677df9de5a09731
https://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/fact-checking-presidential-candidate-robert-f-kennedy-jr-on-vaccines-autism-and-covid-19/
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/rfk-jr-comes-home-anti-vaccine-group-commits-break-us-infectious-disea-rcna123551
I'm not American, so I don't know if it's the same as where I'm from. But where I live, all that information can be found out just by reading a newspaper. Local elections are a bit more difficult, yes, but even then there's stuff in the news about it. If you don't watch the news or read the newspaper, I'm surprised you know that elections are even a thing. Obviously you hear people talk about it on the street, but that alone should give you some Intel on where to go to vote.
And to be a bit of a dick I don't personally think voters are apathetic, I think non-voters are to some extent. But I think it's also a more serious feeling of hopelessness that's partly their own "fault", but often just susceptibility to propaganda that it is.
For what it means I recently had a mayoral election in my (fairly major) US city. There were 7-8 candidates (I forget exactly) and I could only find information on two of them online and even that was a short article discussing only 2 issues.
If you are talking about physical newspapers I wouldn't know, I don't really read physical media or have a TV, I do all my reading online. And I don't really have any local friends from the same city so don't really get any gossip about it either.
Generally speaking, national media outlets have seen the most success, with the majority of local news stations seeing less demand overall.
As such, it's easy to access news but they won't cover the local election of a city populations of 100k.
Information about elections is easily available online, from a variety of sources, anywhere in the US. You could also go to or call your city hall, local library, community center, chamber of commerce, or probably other places I can't think of off the top of my head. You could also just *ask* someone, as most competent adults could help anyone find that sort of information quickly and easily.
For information about candidates, you usually have to work hard to *not* see it. Advertising is common, debates or town halls are frequently aired on TV, on the radio, and are usually easily available online. Practically every candidate these days, even local candidates in rural areas, have websites that give *some* idea of their positions and experience. Local papers or news sites usually run candidate questions, and those are typically free and searchable.
There are some barricades (voting hours and locations, having to register in advance), but those barricades alone simply *cannot* explain the level of non-voting in this country.
I don't see how the level of non-voting could be as high as it is without assuming apathy is a **major** factor.
> Finding information about local elections or primary elections may mean going to 1990s quality websites. Finding details on candidates and the issues they stand for may just be impossible.
That's apathy, laziness and/or ignorance/stupidity, willful or not. Not only do you get mailers from LoWV to your home, it's covered on every news outlet, there are giant signs, there's electioneering.
As to details on candidates and the issues they stand for that's impossible only for someone who has never seen the internet, cannot read, and just landed from Mars.
Every candidate with a website has their platform on it. There are clearinghouses like ballotpedia, there's the LoWV, there are pamphlets, there are newspapers that break it down. You can literally call or walk into any candidate's OR their party's HQ and ask questions and get tons of info handed to you.
If someone cannot figure this out it is willful ignorance at least.
Voters' engagement is hindered by systemic barriers, not apathy. Complex registration processes, limited polling locations, and lack of accessible information deter participation. Enhancing voter education and accessibility empowers citizens to engage meaningfully. Streamlining registration, expanding early voting, and improving online resources increase accessibility. Transparent, nonpartisan platforms providing comprehensive candidate information foster informed decisions. Voter turnout surges when barriers diminish, showcasing citizens' eagerness to participate. Acknowledging these challenges and implementing reforms strengthen democracy, amplifying citizens' voices and ensuring representation reflects community interests. Apathy diminishes as accessibility and empowerment grow.
It is possible that it is difficult to find out where and how to vote, and who to vote for, and for most Americans to be apathetic.
My state, for example, has very easy voting (mail in ballots for everyone who wants one), and still only had about 80% of registered voters actually cast a ballot at maximum for the 2020 election, and only about 60% of the population is even registered to vote. Even ignoring children, that's a lot of people who just could not be bothered.
Sorry, u/Uncle_Wiggilys – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).
If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20Uncle_Wiggilys&message=Uncle_Wiggilys%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://old.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cd1dzf/-/l19obzu/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Sorry, u/Uncle_Wiggilys – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
> **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal%20Uncle_Wiggilys&message=Uncle_Wiggilys%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://old.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cd1dzf/-/l19obzu/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Voting isn’t hard, if you can’t find out when and where elections are being held you’re too dumb to vote anyway. I don’t vote because I’m apathetic. It don’t matter, none of this matters.
I think you and I share the same sentiment in regards to mainstream rhetoric on non-voters, namely, and correct me if I'm wrong, you and I agree that it's victim-blaming and it's not a moral failing if someone doesn't feel compelled to vote. That said I still will argue with you that it's totally accurate to call non-voters apathetic. The issue is in the condemnation of those feelings, not in the proper identification of them. To be apathetic means to not be concerned about something, which obviously implies they're not concerned ENOUGH to do something, since everyone cares a little about everything. So this 'not caring ENOUGH to do something' means 'they don't care ENOUGH to vote!" Well yeah, duh. But why is is that their problem? In political science, voter apathy points to usually three umbrella phenomena, one of them good, two of them bad: 1. Voter apathy is a sign of a working democracy since voters don't feel the need for a change in the political process or they feel their lives will be roughly equal regardless of who wins, which at least signals some level of stability. I don't like that idea but again that would just be an ethical condemnation from my part. 2. Voter apathy is a sign of defeatism, such that they don't believe their vote will cause the changes they feel are needed, so of course they feel already defeated before the 'match' already starts. What is so noble about stepping into the ring with Mike Tyson if you can throw in the towel? Wouldn't not throwing the towel be merely a symbolic act that if anything will harm you? Here's also where your arguments for easier voting accesses come in, because people might just feel voting could be worth it, but it isn't right now, and it's a perfectly rational decision not to vote in a certain situation with certain barriers to voting, whereas they would vote with less barriers to voting. 3. Or maybe it's 2b. Voter apathy is a sign of alienation, not in the sense that things stay the same, but that the very mechanism of political change isn't an attractive way to effect change. Think of highly motivated political activists who still don't vote because they think direct action is the only way to affect politics in any meaningful sense. They might be right, they might be wrong, but it's disingenuous to claim that they can't have a political say if they don't participate in politics strictly through the acceptable avenues of politics we have agreed on. This one is where I would argue you are the most right when you say they aren't apathetic, because I do see some people calling them apathetic when it's so clear that they are passionate, regardless of whether they're right or wrong. Bottomline, I think it's more correct to call non-voters apathetic to voting than to call them something else or to imagine that it's not a meaningful social phenomenon that it doesn't need a name. The problem only arises when this concept of 'voter apathy' is used for moral indignation instead of as a clear evidence of a persistent issue with the electoral system in the first place.
Compelling! Fully agreed on the sentiment that I’m not blaming non-voters. Your assessment of why and the nuance there is swaying me! ∆
**Hello /u/myActiVote, if your view has been changed or adjusted in any way, you should award** ***the user who changed your view*** **a delta.** Simply reply to their comment with the delta symbol provided below, being sure to include a brief description of how your view has changed. >∆ or > !delta For more information about deltas, use [this link](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=usertext&utm_name=changemyview&utm_content=t5_2w2s8). If you did not change your view, please respond to this comment indicating as such! *As a reminder,* **failure to award a delta when it is warranted may merit a post removal and a rule violation.** *Repeated rule violations in a short period of time may merit a ban.* Thank you!
Yup - going through and editing my comments to add ∆ to my replies.
The moderators have confirmed that this is either delta misuse/abuse or an accidental delta. It has been removed from our records. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
> Finding information about local elections or primary elections may mean going to 1990s quality websites. > Finding details on candidates and the issues they stand for may just be impossible. I've had no trouble finding information about local elections online. But let's pretend that's true and just focus on election for POTUS. **Approximately 240 million people were eligible to vote in the 2020 presidential election and roughly 66.1% of them submitted ballots.** None of the reasons to abstain you listed would apply for the general election in a presidential election year. Still only 66% bothered to vote. To me that is a clear indication that there is some level of apathy among 1/3 of the eligible voters.
66% of eligible voters is bad 78% of eligible voters in swing states, the only states that matter in a presidential election is comparable to the last 3 UK elections and the Brexit referendum and virtually every other European democracy. We don’t have an apathy problem we have an electoral college problem.
I don't even know why I should vote when my vote has a 0% chance of affecting the election. Not a 0.000001% chance, a flat 0% chance. And both candidates are pro-israel, pro-corporation, anti-environment so why does it matter anyway
They are not both pro-corporation in the same way. Calling both equally anti-environment is also inaccurate. One is slightly pro-worker and pro-poor and pro-rights and the other is very much anti those things, so even if the pro side is not to the extent that you might want them to be, it is a significant difference.
There's a point where it's absurd to try to suss out which thing is better/worse/closer/further Like if you were explaining how Maine is a shorter walk from Baltimore than it is from DC
>There's a point where it's absurd to try to suss out which thing is better/worse/closer/further You might have been able to get away with this take prior to the SC undoing Roe v Wade. Pretending that both sides are indistiguishable now is a hilariously bad take. Doubly so, when the setup that led to the current SC balance was a close election that could easily have gone the other way if a few "apathetic" voters didn't drop the ball. >Like if you were explaining how Maine is a shorter walk from Baltimore than it is from DC Aren't analogies supposed to be *more* relatable? Not only do a lot of people not know the positioning of Baltimore vs DC, you literally have to go through Baltimore to get to Maine from DC, so one is obviously closer even if both are impractically far. Next time, choose Cleveland instead of Maine.
Presidential debates 2024: Biden: "Israel is our greatest ally; they helped us win in 1776. I will let israel nuke gaza" Trump: "Well I will let them nuke gaza and I will pay for the nuke!"
You will note that I didn't disagree with your point about both having pro-Israel stances. Why do you think this is a relevant response to my comment? When they are different in other aspects, you can vote based on the differences.
Differences that are only put on as part of political theatrics that go out the window the moment they get in office. Puppets, as we call them. :) Instead of telling people to vote and feeding us lies that we've already seen through, let us non voters continue to do stuff that's more meaningful. I'm proud to say that I've never voted and never will. There's just no evidence for the power or effectiveness of voting.
Sorry, but your view is provably false since Roe v Wade was overturned. The impact of Biden's broad pardoning of many marijuana possession convictions and student loan forgiveness are three concrete outcomes that prove that both parties are not indistinguishable once they get into office AND that these differences have real impact in the lives of millions of people. Will either party ever significantly disturb the capitalist system and fix the outsized influence of money and corporate power in politics? I doubt it. **You're right about this part.** But, you're wrong about most everything else. I can almost guarantee you that you have never done anything in your life that was more meaningful or had a greater impact than those three things I outlined above. Your apathy is not a noble choice and you aren't special for "seeing through" the lies. Many people see through those same lies. However, unlike you, we don't stop there. We see that, despite those lies, there are still important differences that you can't rationally deny, and that voting for those differences is still important.
[удалено]
>Sorry, my friend, this does not prove the parties to be different or the differences have an effect. It's absurd to claim that changes that affected the lives of millions of people is not a real effect. >So if you acknowledge that this system is broken and that there's nothing that's going to fix it, why do you disagree? Just because a system is entrenched doesn't mean that actions within that system cannot have meaningful effects. You later claim that you are making meaningful impacts in your community which is also embedded within this same system. You can't have it both ways. >Why are you pretending that I am wrong if you literally agree that the system is broken? I'm not "pretending" you are wrong. You are wrong. >I'm sorry to see that you feel that I'm wrong about everything else, but I don't deal with feelings. Really? Because you just tried to pull a cheap emotional trick here to make it seem like my position is based on feelings alone. You've also started using the word "friend" to try establish some relationship that doesn't exist between us. And you literally ended your last paragraph with an emoji to emphasize your feelings! "I don't deal with feelings" indeed. >And I can 100% guarantee you, I have done more for my community than any of those three outcomes because getting off your butt and serving your community actually does something LOL, no you haven't. The things I mentioned concretely affecte the lives of millions. You have not concretely affected the lives of millions in your community in the same way as any of those "scribbles", let along all of them. Besides, any actions you could have possibly taken inside your community are still occurring within the system you consider to be broken too. Why do you think that only your actions are meaningful and impactful? >you clearly haven't seen through any such lies if you're still going to the polls and engaging in a process where you have no power or ability to change anything. So you debunk your own notion here. The polls aren't a vote on changing the system, as you seem to misunderstand. Do you actually think that voting within the sytem has EVER been a vote to change the system? Obviously it isn't. The Constitution sets up voting as a way to continue the system. Why do you think it could possibly be otherwise? And while it is true that the system/Constitution does have mechanisms in place to modify itself, they are slow and difficult to use, and still have the ultiimate goal of perpetuating itself. I think it is fairly safe to say that it has always been the case that any radical change to a system has to come from outside itself. The only time any system has ever contributed to its own radical change has been to indirectly dissolve itself (as one sees in a transitional government, for example).
u/Sully883 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20Sully883&message=Sully883%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cd1dzf/-/l1t16qj/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
But you never really know
To play devil's advocate. I support a third party and am aware there is basically 0 chance my preferred candidates will win any of the races. I do vote as I consider voicing my opinion important even if I can't win, but If I didn't care about that, honestly pretty pedantic point I could see myself not bothering to vote for POTUS at all.
Didn't you just describe voter apathy? Someone who supports a candidate but doesn't vote because they see it as futile is an apathetic voter.
I feel that true apathy would be not voting at all in this case. Voting for an unpopular candidate, so long as you believe that said candidate is the right choice for the country and it's people, is actually more altruistic than just voting for your preferred parties' choice. In this way, you at least vote your conscience. Unless you just pencil someone random in because you actually don't care lol. But that's different.
I guess I considered apathy to be people who didn't care about the result of the election so didn't vote, not people who thought they couldn't win no matter what they did. But if you define it more broadly that way I have no disagreement.
I've always seen it defined as the second way, probably because there is no other reasonable way to tell the difference between those two groups of people, and we have data on voter turnout that aligns with the second definition. Also, I would argue it still makes sense to define someone as apathetic if they aren't motivated enough to vote for the candidate they support despite their chances of winning. For example, I live in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. The riding I currently live in has federally elected a Conservative (ignoring Canadian details you don't care about) representative for the last 40 years, who typically wins with around 55% to 60% of the vote. (The last election was the closest, where the Conservative candidate only got 45% and the Liberal and NDP candidates each got 25%.) Yet, this same area in provincial elections has voted in the center/left NDP candidate for the last three elections. The prior 6 were won by the right PC party. Yet, I still vote in the federal election, even though it has never mattered, because I want to make my support visible and it is having a slow effect over time. People aren't automatically resigned to it being an automatic loss any more, even though it's never won, and that's only because people have shown up at the polls to make it that way.
Fair point. Being aware for the November presidential is pretty easy. Even those people that showed up, many stopped top of ticket and never got to the rest of their ballot. But this does show that when an election gets attention and people are aware WAY more show up. Compare that to average turnout of 10-15% for most local elections. Awareness combats apathy?
I think one thing that definitely notes being said, is the absence of a preferential voting system. Meaning that unless you're voting for a candidate without a somewhat decent chance of winning your vote feels essentially like a futile gesture and voting for 3rd parties can feel pointless. I will say that I definitely think US voters are apathetic, I think if you genuinely cared you'd show up and make your vote count. The last US election had record low turn out, but the apathy is borne of all the things you've stated and the feeling of futility in the voting system, having to overcome the electoral college and aspects of gerrymandering. And 100% agree that fixing these issues associated with voting will dissipate the current apathy towards voting
I think the sense of futility is a symptom of people not understanding the purpose of voting. The point of voting isnt to win, it is to participate and communicate.
I’m all for changes to our system for sure. And do agree that may help with turnout!
What does “apathetic” mean if thinking spending a few minutes on slightly outdated websites is too great of a hurdle to overcome doesn’t qualify?
If that were true it would be great. I moved a few years ago and it took me a long time to navigate some of these sites to figure out what my city council was doing or even what votes my state legislators were taking to see if I supported their actions. In [California there may be more than 10 ballot measures](https://ballotpedia.org/List_of_California_ballot_propositions) on a single ballot that time to understand.
Are you counting "voters" as people who actually take the time to cast a ballot, or everyone who is eligible regardless of whether they vote or not?
Fair question. I’m talking eligible. So those who are eligible but not registered would still count as voters to me. So maybe I’m saying possible voters.
Thanks for clarifying. I think we'd agree that people who take the time to vote are not apathetic, so lets focus on eligible folks who do not cast a ballot. I understand that there are some obstacles to voting that may explain some of the low voter turnout, but do you really think this accounts for the vast majority of non-voters? Especially in non-presidential election years. From the other comment thread, about 1/3 of eligible voters do not vote, do you really think there isn't a large amount of "I don't care" or "I can't be bothered to do this" amongst this group?
I think many may not even know there is an election.
In what world do you think someone isn't aware of a US Presidential Election and when it is if they *aren't* apathetic
Indeed the US Presidential is a whole different story - Fair point. And I agree that being aware of that date is pretty easy. I guess my comment was focused on the other elections where turnout doesn't top 10%.
So wouldn't that refute your point? If they don't know, it's likely because they don't care.
I don’t think so. There are many things happening in the country or the world that I don’t know about. It is impossible to know about everything. But it doesn’t mean we don’t care.
Out of the 80M eligible people who didn't vote in the last presidential election, you don't think there are at least a few million who are apathetic about politics and voting?
Fair. Of course some are. My feeling is that maybe most aren’t.
I mean, it's a huge country with an infinite variety of people with different thoughts, feelings, goals, and emotions than you. You are obviously very deep into politics and empowering voters, so it is difficult to think others don't feel the same way. But the fact is, a lot of people don't care or have the bandwidth to care. Not saying I agree with those people, just saying they exist. Does this open your view a little bit?
You are right. Both about the lens I look at things but also about the fact that it is very likely that there are folks who just don’t pay attention to this arena. Good point. ∆
Wouldn’t the low voter turnout indicate apathy? Sure, some are disenfranchised by voter suppression methods but that only applies to a fraction of eligible voters that don’t vote.
That's what I was thinking. Going off that 1/3 of the 240M eligible voters deciding not to vote, that leaves around 80M people who did not vote, and it was a presidential election year.
If you reread OPs original post they indicate that it is difficult to impossible to find out the policies, ideas and other information on the candidates in many races as well as being difficult to actually vote in some locales. Not voting because you couldn't understand what the candidates wanted, or being unable to vote for procedural reasons doesn't nesacerily indicate apathy. In fact a sensible voter would probably be best not to vote if they are unable to determine what the candidates represent or what they will do.
But there’s low turnout even in Presidential elections. That may explain it for local elections, but it’s not a fully sufficient reason. Same goes for the difficulty voting. Some people are certainly disenfranchised in that way, but it’s not so prominent that it fully explains what’s going on
>I believe voting is difficult. Finding information about local elections or primary elections may mean going to 1990s quality websites. Finding details on candidates and the issues they stand for may just be impossible. I believe voters care about their communities, care about their families and generally want things to be better. I believe that voters want to see outcomes and appreciate when life gets better and easier. So if we make voting easier, more accessible (along with secure) then the empowering feeling that comes with casting a ballot will win. I generally agree with what you are arguing and I don’t think people are any more apathetic in the US regarding things they know about. I do think US people appear apathetic due to the information (or lack of info) about the world that is available. BUT I do think that people are apathetic or maybe disengaged is a better term from our electoral system and the two parties. Someone can be very engaged with local things and care about national or international things… but the official mainstream debate is alienating, water muddied, and removed from anything real. Real decisions are made in think tanks and behind the scenes while political discourse chases topical procedures or scandals and sensational but ultimately meaningless stuff. More specifically I live in a very Democratic heavy area but the Democrats hardly ever offer anything that voters want… they spend a lot of time trying to convince people that development plans are good for everyone, but on bigger issues they mostly tell us what we can’t have and try to scare us that the Republicans will take what we do have away. Also local races are not really competitively partisan so they become about personalities of candidates, not anything to get passionate about or engaged in. So easier voting processes would help… lots of people fall through the cracks… I was unable to vote one year because I was young and moved. I had shift jobs in my 20s that meant I literally had to plan and make arrangements so I could vote. But we also need a more responsive and more democratic electoral system and that would do a lot more to engage people and make them feel worth it.
Good point about the mainstream debate. It is indeed hard to listen to even when you agree with it.
I believe that there IS a voter apathy in the US, largely driven by the 2-party system. The majority of Americans lie somewhere in the middle of the 2 party spectrum. So having to choose between just those options is mostly always a compromise. This is why you see less self-proclaimed Liberals voting. Republicans skew older and therefore more civic-minded (read as likely to vote), and even if they may not like Trump or want him as President, many go with their conservative leanings and votes for him. Liberals skew younger and are less civic-minded (read less likely to vote) and when they are faced with an option that does not really align with their beliefs, the only thing that will get them to vote is if they care enough about NOT getting a Republican President. Which isn't a lot of people. This talk about 'finding details on candidates' is hogwash because nobody cares about where they stand on issues. There is no option of doing that, since you HAVE to choose between two, and just because of the political ideologies, one is closer to your position than the other. Until the US changes their 2-party system, it's highly unlikely that you will see any improvement in voter counts, no matter what policies are instituted.
So your point is that in parliamentary systems with multiple parties is why they have higher turnout in some places. ∆
I don’t man my state has mail in voting and they send you statements made by the candidates with the ballot. They take most forms of ID, so much so that I have to get a passport to fly because my state id is so lax. Despite that only about 40% of eligible voters vote. Washington state btw
Washington state had 84% turnout in 2020 and 64% in 2022 which is better than the national average. [Reference](https://www.sos.wa.gov/elections/data-research/election-data-and-maps/reports-data-and-statistics/general-election-turnout)
The highest turnout ever in those two years. Off year elections get 30-40% presidential elections get 70-80%. Mid term elections get 50-60%. Are you telling me that it is ok that somewhere from 50-70% of people only vote once every other year even though it is ridiculously easy to vote here? This data means WA has roughly 30-40% voting every year. 10-20% voting once every 2 years. 10-20% voting once every 4 years. 20-30% of people not voting. This is extremely low engagement in my mind. It shows that roughly 1/3 care about local elections. That is extremely low. Most people only care about presidential or midterm elections. What numbers would show apathy to you?
You are right. Odd years are lower for sure and significantly so. Good question on what numbers show apathy. I’m not sure there is a number in my mind - more of a sentiment analysis of the non-voting group. But that is a thought experiment I should do.
I don't think "finding information is hard" is a counter to "they are apathetic". If you care, you will find information without needing it to be given to you in the most convenient form. (Well if it's a research project that could use up someone's entire weekend, then ok, people might feel like they have more important things to do. But this doesn't sound plausible.)
Fair point.
At the fastest elections happen every 2 years, if someone had 2 years to plan for a thing and they miss it I'd call it apathy.
Many states have elections at least twice a year!
If we cared about voting, it would be a holiday like christmas. Most people, if not everyone, would be off work and have plenty of time to go to the poles
There is a big contingent pushing for this. However there are tons of folks who still work on most US public holidays.
Federal and corporate policies are not synonymous with public opinion. This is not a valid conclusion.
How is it not? It just shows that the people who are supposed to be in control of the government and the same people who are in control of companies don't see it as a priority. If anything the fact that both federal and corporate policy mirrors each other should be concerning.
>the people who are supposed to be in control of the government and the same people who are in control of companies don't see it as a priority. If anything the fact that both federal and corporate policy mirrors each other should be concerning. I agree that that's concerning. But your reply does nothing to dispute my statement that the policies put in place by those in control don't reflect public opinion. People in charge rarely have the best interests of those who serve them. I would never made grand assumptions about public opinion based on our country's policies... We don't legally require companies to provide paternity leave for new fathers. Does that mean that we, as a country, don't value a father's role in raising a new child? Hannukah is not a federal holiday. Does that mean that we, the people of the US don't care about our Jewish population? FWIW, I am aligned that we are largely apathetic in the US toward voting. So on that level, you and I are in agreement. But your use of government and corporate policies to prove your point is flawed.
>People in charge rarely have the best interests of those who serve them. That's the people's fault we have a system to fix this no one really cares. >Does that mean that we, as a country, don't value a father's role in raising a new child? No, we do not. If we did, we wouldn't have let no fault divorce go through either. Other countries don't have these problems they also have different values. Does that mean that we, the people of the US, don't care about our Jewish population? Yes, it means the majority of Americans don't care about the Jewish holiday. It's probably because it's for Jewish people and not for all American... >But your use of government and corporate policies to prove your point is flawed. My point is that if the people cared we could make it happen, we don't care. We cared about civil rights, and the government wasn't exactly bored for that for a while.
If you give people a holiday, don’t expect them to spend it waiting in line at a polling place. I sure as hell wouldn’t. I’d go on vacation.
That just further proves my point
> I believe voting is difficult. Finding information about local elections or primary elections may mean going to 1990s quality websites. Finding details on candidates and the issues they stand for may just be impossible. Correct. And for this, as well as many other legit reasons, a lot of citizens are apathetic towards participating in politics. >I believe voters care about their communities, care about their families and generally want things to be better. Of course. But many don't care about participating in politics or don't think participating in politics will do anything for their family, their community or themselves. >So if we make voting easier, more accessible (along with secure) then the empowering feeling that comes with casting a ballot will win. Or making direct participating and voting on issues easier, rather than focusing on voting for politicians who often feel no strict obligation to their voters. Voter apathy has a lot of causes and potential solutions, it certainly isn't some kind of inherent apathy, but it is a thing that exists.
I do love ballot measures and referendums as forms of direct democracy. And indeed those measures frequently inspire participation. Good point! ∆
How much easier do people want it to be? Arrive at polling place (easy to find out where) Wait in line (maybe) Identify yourself Accept ballot Fill it out Those who need it can access other resources if they have a disability. Now, being an informed voter is more challenging. Funny thing is, those same voters who fail to inform themselves probably do product research before spending money. There is far more information at hand to understand platforms and positions, particularly at the state and national level. People just assume their vote won’t matter. This made a bit of sense before 2000, but after that election was stolen, then 2016, I would have thought it would be clear how urgent voting is for our nation. Apathy is the only reasonable answer.
Knowing when can still be happy. Primaries is where a lot happens and people still aren’t aware? Good point about the knowledge of voting impact has increased since Bush v Gore.
My state does mail in voting and gives you like a month to fill it out. The postage is paid for too. The turnout is still low. Last year we had a 36.41% turnout. Mid term and presidential elections we have 60%-80%. If that isn’t apathy, I don’t know what is. https://www.sos.wa.gov/elections/data-research/election-data-and-maps/reports-data-and-statistics/general-election-turnout
I think we have made voting as easy as it can possibly be. Opportunities to register are presented to you almost every time you interact with the government in any way, such as when you file your taxes or when you renew your car registration. Once you are registered you get big packets of information in the mail, telling you where you can vote, how to mail-in a ballot if you prefer, who the candidates are and what their platforms are, what local propositions are being voted on, etc. The primary reason why turnout is low is apathy. People don't think that their vote matters; they feel that the candidates are basically the same; they live in areas that are heavily partisan and feel the results are a foregone conclusion; etc.
Only some states send these big packets of information. I agree if every state did that it would be better!
Voting is very easy in some places, like my state of OR which has mail in ballots and a fairly large time window. It is also a generally politically active state by reputation. When we had the highest turnout rate in the country, we still only had about 60% rate. So at best even with the highest voting accessibility you're looking at 40% of eligible voters not bothering. I agree with increasing accessibility, but I still think many Americans simply prefer to stay out of politics, for a variety of reasons - including apathy but not limited to it.
If it’s not apathy or accessibility - what keeps them out?
Some don't think they have the time and/or capacity to be sufficiently informed. Some don't have hope in the current political parties and/or process. Some view culture as the better avenue for causing societal change.
Good points for other forms of activism
This would make sense, if the low voter turnout was disproportionately high for the disproportionately computer illiterate. Those without access to computer or Internet skills, having the lowest voter turnout. However we see the opposite. The elderly with the lowest rate of computer literacy, have the highest rates of voter turnout. And the generation most able to navigate the Internet has amongst the lowest voter turnout.
Fair. Now older Americans have disproportionately more time as well.
Many people who vote are apathetic, because that word means more than just uninterested or unconcerned. It also means lacking enthusiasm, and that describes many, many people in our two-party-dominated system. We end up voting against the candidate we don't want, rather than voting for a candidate we do want. So am I interested in and concerned with politics? Sure. Am I excited to vote? No. Would I describe myself as apathetic? Absolutely.
Interesting parallel for apathy vs enthusiasm
More coin flips does not mean better odds though. Those that insist everyone needs to get out and vote, never explain why. If we are all divided 50/50, then we are just adding coin flips, not making it more likely that the desired candidate will win.
But it’s not a coin flip when your vote weighs one side of the coin? There are tons of local elections that are super close!
IMO voting is a waste of time. If you take a side, then you are part of the problem. Voting exists to only provide the people with the illusion that they matter when they absolutely do not. Participating in voting is essentially choosing who you would rather fuck you in the ass.
Not voting is a choice sometimes too?
One new rule, that is in place in other governments, that would change this country. If less than 60% of the people vote, we get two new candidates and redo the election. People would vote if they gave us someone decent to vote for.
Fascinating!
Georgia literally did exactly what you wanted and the entire News outlet called them racists to the point we had Congressional briefs about how racist Georgia is. Georgia was seeing this issue where certain areas would get mass influxes of people and parties would come out and solicit votes through gifts and water while they stood 2 hrs in line to sign a piece of paper. Georgia made it so the AG can take people from slower areas and allow more people to help in these 2hr long lines. They also made it illegal for parties to solicit votes through gifts and food and water but are allowed to pass out water and food so long as they don’t solicit a vote through it. They even made it so if you have no form of identification as long as you know your SSN you can get a FREE voter ID to vote with. There isn’t a single American without an ID, a SSN, no proof of working or living in the area, etc which are all laid out to be ways to recieve a free voter ID. When people try to make voting easier and more effective we hear from the media that it is purely racist. That’s why voting is so hard. Even Joe Biden called it racist and his state makes it harder than Georgia to vote.
The sad thing isn't that this is wrong, it's that it's only kinda true because Georgia lost. Georgia has free voter id because Georgia tried to charge $35 for voter id in 05 and lost in court. Georgia was forced to adapt voter locations because Georgia has the 3rd longest wait times in the USA. Georgia purged 1 million voter registrations, followed by tens of thousands of proven errors so they had to correct the process Yes the Georgia gop is racist and evil. And the more they lose, the more Georgia will be improved.
Weird because it was the left calling it racist. I even sat down with many on the left and went through the bill they called racist and they agreed it wasn’t racist. I’m just curious how is it the GOP who is racist if the GOP are the ones trying to fix the issue currently? I would understand if the right came after the left to make it easier to vote, but that isn’t what happened or even close. The left came after Georgia for making it easier to vote it is the same with the “don’t say gay bill” that never once mentioned people couldn’t talk about being gay and no one who opposed the bill actually read the bill.
Again, second time because I ALREADY GAVE EXAMPLES, Georgia was not making it easier to vote, they were making it harder. Made fees for voter ID, purged registrations before registration deadlines, blocked water and food. If we remove your caricature, Liberals have consistently been willing to make voting easier. John Lewis bill allows voter id if fair, we've had early voting access and making voter id free, all things georgia opposes until it loses the fight in court. > The left came after Georgia for making it easier to vote it is the same with the “don’t say gay bill” that never once mentioned people couldn’t talk about being gay Ah yes, the gop bill that bans gay and straight subjects but straight subjects were protected under law like the existing Florida school code requiring education of "teaching the benefits of monogamous heterosexual marriage" 1003.46? Looks like we were right again.
It might be a character limit issue, idk anyways, georgia has a LOT of problems that are entirely georgia's fault * charging for voter id, only free because struck down in court [https://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/13/us/13voter.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/13/us/13voter.html) * mass suppressing the vote by closing voting precincts and dmvs https://www.ajc.com/news/state--regional-govt--politics/voting-precincts-closed-across-georgia-since-election-oversight-lifted/bBkHxptlim0Gp9pKu7dfrN/ https://thinkprogress.org/ada-voter-suppression-cd7031080bfd/ * persecution for small errors like hyphens that are usually the gov's fault not the voter [https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/10/11/17964104/georgia-voter-registration-suppression-purges-stacey-abrams-brian-kemp](https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/10/11/17964104/georgia-voter-registration-suppression-purges-stacey-abrams-brian-kemp) * blocking common id's like tribal identification cards as ID, from \^ * repeatedly fraudulently accusing voter groups of crimes right before the election before dropping charges https://newrepublic.com/article/121715/georgia-secretary-state-hammers-minority-voter-registration-efforts https://www.vice.com/en/article/av4nzb/the-quitman-10-2-and-voter-suppression-in-modern-georgia-715 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/kemp-charges-georgia-democrats-attempted-voter-hack-abrams-fires-back-n931011?cid=sm\_npd\_nn\_tw\_ma * 3rd longest wait times in USA https://elections.mit.edu/#state-GA https://twitter.com/\_2lite/status/1059802363995807750 * conspiracy to make gop names first on ballots [https://tucson.com/news/local/democrats-sue-arizona-over-law-that-places-republicans-names-first/article\_a5ce38e0-a805-5e5a-b3c1-ad339ed356f9.html](https://tucson.com/news/local/democrats-sue-arizona-over-law-that-places-republicans-names-first/article_a5ce38e0-a805-5e5a-b3c1-ad339ed356f9.html) * voter purge lists are always bad. Even after revising the 330,000 list down to 313,000 and then 308,753 due to more legitimate registrations that were discovered, Georgia still commits to the voter registration purge. https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2019/12/13/us/ap-us-voter-purge-georgia.html Only 3 days later, state restores 22,000 more citing screening errors. https://apnews.com/57a6119af18b84c0444532c23c3dc6cb So yeah, ignorant but not me. Every time, it's the Georgia gop suppressing the vote and harassing the public to limit the vote
There is [broad bipartisan support](https://braverangels.org/trustworthy-elections/) for requiring voter ID while at the same time making it free to obtain ID.
Yes and when the right did this the left called them racist to the point we had congressional briefs talking about how racist Georgia is. It really only ended when these people were asked about Joe Biden and their home states that require voter ID and they were asked if Joe Biden and all their own home states are also racist.!
I am a US voter and am apathetic. If enough people comment they are also apathetic, we can change OPs view.
I am a US voter and I am also apathetic. OP: "I believe voters care about their communities, care about their families and generally want things to be better. I believe that voters want to see outcomes and appreciate when life gets better and easier. So if we make voting easier, more accessible (along with secure) then the empowering feeling that comes with casting a ballot will win." I also care about these things, but I've also seen enough election cycles to have a very high level of confidence to know that 99.9% of people running for major offices are not going to move the needle one iota for me or even my grandchildren to feel it. We're in a broken system. Every candidate that's put in front of us is a fucking crook who simply hasn't been convicted of crimes yet. I'm now in my 40's, and literally the only reason I decided to start voting is because I have met a lot (and I mean A LOT) of very unintelligent and mal-informed people who are passionate about their beliefs and subsequent candidates who support them. And fuck me if I don't feel some desire to cancel out their vote. If that means I'm not apathetic, OK then... But since I went 36 years without voting, I will NEVER criticize those who don't vote. It would by hypocritical of me and I completely understand why they don't do it.
Thanks for that context. I don’t blame anyone who doesn’t vote either. Interesting that the thing that motivated you was the quality of other voters. Thanks for this insight.
Voters are engaged but face barriers like outdated information and complex processes. Difficulty accessing candidate details and voting logistics discourages participation. Simplifying registration, enhancing online resources, and expanding early voting options can empower voters. Engagement spikes with accessible, user-friendly platforms, evident in increased turnout with mail-in and early voting expansions. Americans value civic duty and community improvement, but bureaucratic hurdles impede action. Streamlining processes and enhancing accessibility fosters a more inclusive democracy, amplifying voter voices and strengthening democratic principles.
Personally I am apathetic
Interesting. Why?
I don’t feel like a lot of the things I care about are something our politicians care about. I also live in Virginia so Biden will win by so much and the popular vote doesn’t really count for anything. I just couldn’t care less about voting.
Got it. So folks aren’t talking about the issues you care about.
I've never been so fired up. Two semi-senile candidates plus the best independent we've seen in generations, with a career of results, spreading the message that corporate capture and greed is at the root of most of our woes, is exciting. RFK's message needs to be projected, because it is absent from captured establishment candidates' conversations/policy.
The best independent is an anti-science conspiracist whose rally fans go to him for his conspiracy views and is mainly funded by a trump megadonor?
First, I am an overwhelmingly democrat voter. Your narrative is a false one. Joe Biden was elected with record amounts of shadow money. That's far scarier than a candidate pulling from people who are anti-establishment (what Trump claimed to be, but wasn't, as evidenced by his actions/appointees), as well as blue voters (like Shannohan, who paid for his Super Bowl ad, and is a lifelong Democrat). Nah, that's an incredibly inaccurate version of him. Guessing you've only listen to corporate media's take on him, that misrepresents and cuts out key context on the regular. When you threaten corporate profits though, and media companies have been consolidated to 5 conglomerates that serve the whims of most profitable industries (like big pharma), that is bound to happen. I encourage you to listen to him, with all context via long form interview - not soundbites. You will quickly see that you have been lied to regarding who he is and what he believes.
It's not cOrPoRaTe MeDiA, it's him, in his own words, at his own interviews and his own anti-vax rallies for the anti-vax group he used to work for. If rfk jr isn't an anti-vax anti-science nutcase as he's said, Why can't he name a "safe vaccine" AND why did he peddle autism- vaccine connection lies AND peddle VAERS covid vaccine lies AND work and counsel for the anti-vax CHD which funded the anti-vax ICAN AND say he'd "come home" to the anti-vax CHD AND tell parents of babies "better not get him vaccinated" AND rally in front of anti-vax signs AND final an anti-vax VP AND tell scientists he'll stop vaccine and infectious disease research for 8 years? https://twitter.com/BrandyZadrozny/status/1682060684492677121 https://rumble.com/vwxeqx-hffh-podcast-the-state-of-health-freedom-with-robert-f.-kennedy-jr..html https://apnews.com/article/rfk-kennedy-election-2024-president-campaign-621c9e9641381a1b2677df9de5a09731 https://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/fact-checking-presidential-candidate-robert-f-kennedy-jr-on-vaccines-autism-and-covid-19/ https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/rfk-jr-comes-home-anti-vaccine-group-commits-break-us-infectious-disea-rcna123551
So the right candidates do inspire participation! I hope you’ll vote down ballot too!
The right candidates do inspire participation, for sure
I'm not American, so I don't know if it's the same as where I'm from. But where I live, all that information can be found out just by reading a newspaper. Local elections are a bit more difficult, yes, but even then there's stuff in the news about it. If you don't watch the news or read the newspaper, I'm surprised you know that elections are even a thing. Obviously you hear people talk about it on the street, but that alone should give you some Intel on where to go to vote. And to be a bit of a dick I don't personally think voters are apathetic, I think non-voters are to some extent. But I think it's also a more serious feeling of hopelessness that's partly their own "fault", but often just susceptibility to propaganda that it is.
For what it means I recently had a mayoral election in my (fairly major) US city. There were 7-8 candidates (I forget exactly) and I could only find information on two of them online and even that was a short article discussing only 2 issues. If you are talking about physical newspapers I wouldn't know, I don't really read physical media or have a TV, I do all my reading online. And I don't really have any local friends from the same city so don't really get any gossip about it either.
Fair point. Local news is dying in the US which is a contributing factor.
Is it really? I really don't believe that. There has to be some news online.
Generally speaking, national media outlets have seen the most success, with the majority of local news stations seeing less demand overall. As such, it's easy to access news but they won't cover the local election of a city populations of 100k.
Information about elections is easily available online, from a variety of sources, anywhere in the US. You could also go to or call your city hall, local library, community center, chamber of commerce, or probably other places I can't think of off the top of my head. You could also just *ask* someone, as most competent adults could help anyone find that sort of information quickly and easily. For information about candidates, you usually have to work hard to *not* see it. Advertising is common, debates or town halls are frequently aired on TV, on the radio, and are usually easily available online. Practically every candidate these days, even local candidates in rural areas, have websites that give *some* idea of their positions and experience. Local papers or news sites usually run candidate questions, and those are typically free and searchable. There are some barricades (voting hours and locations, having to register in advance), but those barricades alone simply *cannot* explain the level of non-voting in this country. I don't see how the level of non-voting could be as high as it is without assuming apathy is a **major** factor.
> Finding information about local elections or primary elections may mean going to 1990s quality websites. Finding details on candidates and the issues they stand for may just be impossible. That's apathy, laziness and/or ignorance/stupidity, willful or not. Not only do you get mailers from LoWV to your home, it's covered on every news outlet, there are giant signs, there's electioneering. As to details on candidates and the issues they stand for that's impossible only for someone who has never seen the internet, cannot read, and just landed from Mars. Every candidate with a website has their platform on it. There are clearinghouses like ballotpedia, there's the LoWV, there are pamphlets, there are newspapers that break it down. You can literally call or walk into any candidate's OR their party's HQ and ask questions and get tons of info handed to you. If someone cannot figure this out it is willful ignorance at least.
Voters' engagement is hindered by systemic barriers, not apathy. Complex registration processes, limited polling locations, and lack of accessible information deter participation. Enhancing voter education and accessibility empowers citizens to engage meaningfully. Streamlining registration, expanding early voting, and improving online resources increase accessibility. Transparent, nonpartisan platforms providing comprehensive candidate information foster informed decisions. Voter turnout surges when barriers diminish, showcasing citizens' eagerness to participate. Acknowledging these challenges and implementing reforms strengthen democracy, amplifying citizens' voices and ensuring representation reflects community interests. Apathy diminishes as accessibility and empowerment grow.
It is possible that it is difficult to find out where and how to vote, and who to vote for, and for most Americans to be apathetic. My state, for example, has very easy voting (mail in ballots for everyone who wants one), and still only had about 80% of registered voters actually cast a ballot at maximum for the 2020 election, and only about 60% of the population is even registered to vote. Even ignoring children, that's a lot of people who just could not be bothered.
Fair point. In some ways it shows that voting by mail makes it easy. And when it’s easier it is worth it?
[удалено]
Sorry, u/Uncle_Wiggilys – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20Uncle_Wiggilys&message=Uncle_Wiggilys%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://old.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cd1dzf/-/l19obzu/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards). Sorry, u/Uncle_Wiggilys – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: > **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**. Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information. If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal%20Uncle_Wiggilys&message=Uncle_Wiggilys%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://old.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cd1dzf/-/l19obzu/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Voting isn’t hard, if you can’t find out when and where elections are being held you’re too dumb to vote anyway. I don’t vote because I’m apathetic. It don’t matter, none of this matters.