Is voting futile?

Post Reply New Topic

Do you think that voting is futile and that no real change can come from this democratic process?

Voting in the general election.

I'd like it a helluva lot if there were better choices than bad and worse.

Voting is not futile. But voting is also not nearly enough. A simple pen mark on a ballot is not the same as actually getting involved.

I may be a liberal, but I have far more respect for the conservatives who take legitimate action to advocate for their cause than the liberals who do not.

"It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything." --J.V. Stalin

I voted no, elections are not futile, though in all honesty, I was thinking about local and state elections just as much as national elections. After all, legalization of gay marriage and weed was accomplished in my own state of Washington through popular vote. Right there, that's proof of the power of the vote. And I got to see my guy Barry O get elected to the highest office in the land twice.

I live in the UK and I'm not even old enough to vote, but I can say with the parties we have at the moment that voting is rather futile. Each election, it just swings from one party to the other, never really making many changes or doing anything to benefit the working class (i.e who they should be helping). There is little difference between our 2 (or arguably 3 or 4) main parties these days, and if you dislike their general attitude, as I for one do, there is no choice. It's a disguised single-party system realistically. We don't even have a strong left wing party full stop, surely that is unfair? There is no way for someone without the conventional centre-right views to get involved in politics over here to be honest, and when I am actually old enough to vote, it will still feel a waste of time. I'm not exactly saying that a dictatorship is a realistic and only possible solution, but I definitely think that (in the UK at least) there should be a much greater range of people to vote for.

_________________
Shy, awkward 16 year old communist girl whose main interests are 9/11, roller coasters and the 1917 Russian Revolution. I might not have any friends but somehow I have a really amazing boyfriend

I voted the third option because I'm hoping things change.

Not at all. In 2002 a strong BNP vote in Oldham changed central government policy not to house asylum seekers in that town even without electing any councillors. Effectively the BNP won without winning.

Voting is not futile. IMO Those who don't vote have no right to complain about who wins elections. If everyone thought it futile to vote we'd end up living under something other than a democracy e.g. military rule or dictatorship. If none of the political parties appeals to you then create your own political movement - if you have something good to say people will join you. In time you may have enough support to fight elections and get your own party elected. That is the way democracy works.

I voted yes, at least in the USA it is, depending on your party, how you vote and what state you live in, like if you are a republican in California , California always votes democrat, if you vote republican it won't matter, opposite is true if you are a democrat in Texas.

My state like California always votes democrat, so as i don't, my vote doesn't matter. Though states like ohio are different where each vote does matter. that silly system of electoral votes. I wish in all states that the votes were decided by districts rather then awarded in whole. Until then my vote won't matter except in city elections.

It can't be any more futile than not voting.

I always forget to register until it's too late. But apart from that I would vote.

Voting is and isn't futile.

People need to get involved, and understand who they are voting for and do actual research, not just what the tv says.

But there are also people who's votes are futile. I live in Maryland, and the vote of anyone who doesn't live on the I-95 corridor is meaningless. There elected reps are on the opposite aisle of a Democratic super majority.

If we could reverse the USC decision in Ropper vs Simms, we could make voting more meaningful to everyone. Before Ropper vs Simms, state senates would often be based on geographic regions, or per county with state houses being based on population. This balanced our rural interests with urban interests similar to how every state gets 2 Senators but House of Delegates is based on population.