What would happen if no one voted?

[Nurvingiel]

Maybe not no one, but what would happen in democratic countries if voter turnout was so low, that the results of the election were worthless?

I imagine a re-electioin would be proposed. Hopefully, people would then realize that their vote really did matter. This would probably never happen, but what if the re-election also failed? How would the next government be chosen with such an abrupt and extreme failure in the system?

Would the strongest take control? Would the incumbent be given another term? Would your country descend into anarchy?

What do you think? Fellow Mooters, lend me your ears...

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Maybe not no one, but what would happen in democratic countries if voter turnout was so low, that the results of the election were worthless?

I imagine a re-electioin would be proposed. Hopefully, people would then realize that their vote really did matter. This would probably never happen, but what if the re-election also failed? How would the next government be chosen with such an abrupt and extreme failure in the system?

Would the strongest take control? Would the incumbent be given another term? Would your country descend into anarchy?

I don't think that if voter turnout was 20 - 30% that a democratic country would turn into anarchy. Anyway - in terms of the US - the president is only one person. The Constitution is our law - our government is made up of three branches - each must work together. A re-election in the US would not be called - there is nothing in the Constitution which says that a certain percentage has to vote. Who ever wins - wins. If people didn't vote - then they didn't vote.

If people don't vote - then they have forfeited their vote. They didn't get a say and must have to go with the winner. If they don't like it - then they can go to the polls the next time. Democracy is about freedom and making a statement. And that to me includes the ability not to vote also. They just have to realize that they are leaving their choice in their neighbor's hand or the person in the next town.

[Nurvingiel]

I agree with what you said. It is very similar in Canada. (I have really got to stop making threads on an empty stomach. )

Anarchy may not ensue, but I wonder what the implications would be if something insane like only 1% of people voted. The government would be chosen by those people. And I suppose the other 99% would re-evaluate their position, the next election would be reasonable, and high school students would have another date to memorize.

[inked]

As you say, Nurv.

The bureacracy would lumber on despite the electoral turnout of 1%. The positions filled. The papers filled out. ...

[Nurvingiel]

Yeah. Hm, I thought this thread might be somewhat interesting, but it turns out that democracy is boring. You win some you lose some.

If it happened in Canada there might be calls to make voting mandatory. There's no call for that now, but only because we have a decent turn-out I think.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

If it happened in Canada there might be calls to make voting mandatory. There's no call for that now, but only because we have a decent turn-out I think.

I think forcing people to vote is undemocratic. It's personal freedom if a person wants to vote. If someone doesn't feel strongly enough about the place they live in to vote - it should be their choice.

NY news I believe posed this question to people on the streets a couple of days ago. Most felt it would be wrong to force people to the polls. They felt it was very unamerican and infringed on a persons freedom of choice.

[Shelob's Hubby]

I think that many non-USA people think that the President holds more power and influence than he really does. He certainly is the most powerful person in the government, but he still can't get a thing done without the approval of a lot of people. If he was elected by 1% of the people, the government would run just fine. In my opinion, the President's main job is to impose a check on the legislative branch. If you could find another way to do this, you wouldn't need a President. I also think that the President gets blamed for a lot of things that aren't his fault, but that's off topic.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Shelob's Hubby

I think that many non-USA people think that the President holds more power and influence than he really does. He certainly is the most powerful person in the government, but he still can't get a thing done without the approval of a lot of people. If he was elected by 1% of the people, the government would run just fine. In my opinion, the President's main job is to impose a check on the legislative branch. If you could find another way to do this, you wouldn't need a President. I also think that the President gets blamed for a lot of things that aren't his fault, but that's off topic.

Exactly - they look at the president because to the outside world he's America's representative. However, he can't just approve treaties (one of the reasons Clinton never sent the Kyoto treaty onto Congress, he knew it would never get approved - so he let Bush take the fall), he can NOT just appoint Supreme Court Justices, he can NOT make any laws, or anything, he can basically only propose and then the Congress passes things and the president approves or vetoes. We have a checks and balance system where everyone has to work together and no one can get anything done without the other branches. The legislative branch can't even enact anything that the Supreme Court deems unconstitutional. There was even something in the Patriot Act which got removed recently because it was determined to be unconstitutional - that is the role of the Supreme Court (among other responsibilities of course).

[inked]

Does this mean that John Kerry can't do everything he says he can? or that George Bush isn't solely responsible for everything wrong with America?

Gee, is the world ready for this information?

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by inked

Does this mean that John Kerry can't do everything he says he can? or that George Bush isn't solely responsible for everything wrong with America?

Hard to believe - isn't it?

Gee, is the world ready for this information?

I don't know - I don't think they will ever accept this fact. Most people in America really think that Bush can just take away the abortion - or that Kerry can just impliment national health care with the signing of a paper. Oh well - it's like beating a dead horse sometimes trying to explain that the president doesn't have this power - only congress does. What is even worse is that people actually think that teh federal government has the strongest power - when actually MOST of the domestic power is left to the individual states.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

I think forcing people to vote is undemocratic. It's personal freedom if a person wants to vote. If someone doesn't feel strongly enough about the place they live in to vote - it should be their choice.

NY news I believe posed this question to people on the streets a couple of days ago. Most felt it would be wrong to force people to the polls. They felt it was very unamerican and infringed on a persons freedom of choice.

I think you should be allowed to choose "none of the above". As it is, people do that by not voting. What if voting were mandatory but abstention was an option on the ballot. People would still have the option to say that none of the candidates were good enough.
Even though the government would still run just fine, a 1% voter turnout is a serious problem.

What if nobody voted at all? Obviously that's a hypothetical situation that would never occur, I'm just curious to think what would happen.

[Count Comfect]

The President Does have a lot of power though. Just not the power most people think he has. He is the Commander in Chief (and there is some lengthy precedent by now for going to war without a declaration - see Nixon invading Cambodia all on his ownsome) and executive orders to the various executive departments can have basically the force of law.

Back on topic, if basically no one voted the biggest result would be a likely swing to extreme radicals in politics since those are the people who tend to vote...

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

The President Does have a lot of power though. Just not the power most people think he has. He is the Commander in Chief (and there is some lengthy precedent by now for going to war without a declaration - see Nixon invading Cambodia all on his ownsome) and executive orders to the various executive departments can have basically the force of law.

That was during Vietnam War (even though that war in itself was not officially declared either). That would be like saying that we needed Congress's approval to go into all the countries of Europe during World War II. The North Vietnamese were using Cambodia as a staging ground for attacks.

Back on topic, if basically no one voted the biggest result would be a likely swing to extreme radicals in politics since those are the people who tend to vote...

It wouldn't swing to an extreme - because there would only be the main two choices anyway. A KKK member or black panther member would still not likely be voted in because of a small turnout in voters.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I think you should be allowed to choose "none of the above". As it is, people do that by not voting. What if voting were mandatory but abstention was an option on the ballot. People would still have the option to say that none of the candidates were good enough.

You can do that here. You don't hav to vote for anyone. That's why the unmarked ballots for president were valid votes for no one. Also - a person can write in anyone they choice. If I want - I can get everyone I know to vote for me and write me in.

Even though the government would still run just fine, a 1% voter turnout is a serious problem.

I don't really consider it a seriously problem - other than being a sign that people just don't care about the future of the country.

What if nobody voted at all? Obviously that's a hypothetical situation that would never occur, I'm just curious to think what would happen.

It would never happen - because the candidates would vote. Our consititution does not say anything about this - just that a president needs 270 electoral votes to win - so they are assuming that EVERY state will vote. If it ends in a tie - 269 to 269 - then it goes to the House of Representatives. This may be the case if there are not enough electoral votes.

Although it could end up being whatever candidate has the most electoral votes would win. Under this senario - Bush would win because Bush lives in Texas (34 electoral votes) and that has far more electoral votes than Massachuchetts (12 electoral votes). Adding in the vice presidential candidates (by the way - the vice president and president can NOT be from the same state) - Cheney - Wyoming (3 electoral votes), Edwards - South Carolina - 8 electoral votes. There for Bush would win with 37 to 20.

[Count Comfect]

Of course, in that hypothetical President/VP only voting, it goes right to the House of Representatives, because you need 270

We DID need Congressional approval in WWII, and we ended up at war with Germany, Japan, Bulgaria, Italy, and a couple others (mostly because they declared war on us, but still).

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

Of course, in that hypothetical President/VP only voting, it goes right to the House of Representatives, because you need 270

Actually - after relooking at the Constitution - it does not say anything about more than half the electoral college votes being required. it only says the "person having the greatest number of votes shall be President"

it's stated in both Article II and Amendment 12.

We DID need Congressional approval in WWII, and we ended up at war with Germany, Japan, Bulgaria, Italy, and a couple others (mostly because they declared war on us, but still).

I didn't say Congress didn't declare war during World War II - but you said that going into Cambodia was illegal because Nixon didn't get approval from Congress. During World War II - we were in the Middle east and all over Asia too (they DID NOT delclare war on us - nor did we declare war on them) - we did not go back and request an okay from Congressional to be fighting in those countries. Our enemy was there - that was enough. Same with Cambodia (except vietnam was never actually declared). We have not had an officially declared war since World War II. In the Iraq - Congress gave Bush the Congressional approval to take military action though.

[Millane]

If no one voted? they would make voting mandatory like they did here people bitch about having to vote but its really not that bad, if you dont want to vote because you hate every candidate you put in a dummy vote, there not really making you vote, there making you turn up to the voting place.

[Nurvingiel]

That's true. I know people here who spoiled their ballot because they didn't like any candidates. I think abstention should be a viable option on the ballot, especially if voting is mandatory. If 30% of people abstain, that's really sending a message. Unfortunately, spoiled ballots are not recorded.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

That's true. I know people here who spoiled their ballot because they didn't like any candidates. I think abstention should be a viable option on the ballot, especially if voting is mandatory. If 30% of people abstain, that's really sending a message. Unfortunately, spoiled ballots are not recorded.

Here you don't have to vote for ever part of the ballot. If you don't want to vote for president - then you don't have to. You are free to leave any part of your ballot blank you wish.

As for mandatory voting - I'm against it. If you live in a free society - you should be free to determine if you want to vote or not. If a person feels it's not important enough to them - then that is their choice.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Here you don't have to vote for ever part of the ballot. If you don't want to vote for president - then you don't have to. You are free to leave any part of your ballot blank you wish.

Well we can do that do. But if you leave part of your ballot blank, do they record this? If so, then it really means something, you're not just spoiling your ballot.

As for mandatory voting - I'm against it. If you live in a free society - you should be free to determine if you want to vote or not. If a person feels it's not important enough to them - then that is their choice.

Fair enough. I still think it would be fine if abstention was an option too. As Millane said, (paraphrase) they are really only forcing you to show up at the voting place. You are still free to spoil your ballot, abstain (I hope) or vote for someone.