Heaven's gonna burn your eyes
16th April 2005
At what point should an election be considered (in)valid?
How many people are needed to make the will of the people legitimate?
wikipediaThe basic formula for determining whether someone will vote is PB + D > C. Here, P is the probability that an individual's vote will affect the outcome of an election, and B is the perceived benefit of that person's favoured political party or candidate being elected. D originally stood for democracy or civic duty, but today represents any social or personal gratification an individual gets from voting. C is the time, effort, and financial cost involved in voting. Since P is virtually zero in most elections, PB is also near zero, and D is thus the most important element in motivating people to vote. For a person to vote, these factors must outweigh C.
Wanna go Double Dutch?
9th December 2003
*poll added on request of the author*
Not voting is also a choice, so I reckon there ought not to be a limit. It's the people's fault if a mad dictator gets in because of that. :rolleyes:
Slightly offtopic, but i really liked it when the Nigerian voters voted at a 110% turnout because of the ballet box stuffing. Ontopic, No limit. If people do not vote, they cannot complain about the government because they did not show preference therefore they clearly did not care about who was the best choice. Admittedly some people do not vote becuase they feel that none of the candidates are suitable, but then starts voting to keep people out, and voting for the most apt of the poor choices. If they do not vote, it's their own choice. It's like Rich said IMO.
Rich19;3670532Not voting is also a choice, so I reckon there ought not to be a limit. It's the people's fault if a mad dictator gets in because of that. :rolleyes:
Not voting is a choice but very poor one, it's never acceptable: if you don't vote you're not even trying to affect on things in the society, it's like complaining about the smoke that comes from fire in neighbour's house but still you not lend a hose to put the fire down. It's like voting the one you like the least and if no people would vote in the elections, in the end all you would get would be a bloody dictatorship or oligarchy. What not voting tells is that people don't like politics, but it doesn't tell the most important: why they don't like it, what they think themselves and what they want from it.
There are plenty of canditates and parties to choose from, that's for sure: all what people have to do is to spend little time for finding a proper one and all of us can spare some time for important things. If people don't like major parties, there's always smaller ones to vote for or they can get into politics themselves. In addition, voting is also showing support for the democratic decision-making.
Even if third party canditate wouldn't pass, it still tells people's dissatisfaction at proper way for the power elite, strenghtens the morale of the small party, people make their duty as citizens and especially, shows for other people that there are other alternatives. People see that the change is possible and start voting again or for the one they truly support. If people just think "oh well, the third party canditate won't pass anyways", nothing will never change. Without faith and will there's not even a shadow of progress. If no canditate feels suitable, then people should pick a canditate they like the most: it's non-sense to try to find a canditate who 100% fits person's requirements, there's no such thing as "perfect".
Some could say that one vote doesn't count but in that they are dead wrong. Numerous single votes change election results and raise different people & parties into power. There's considerable potential force behind the people who don't vote but they don't realize it, unluckily. Voting is not just useful but also necessary, always.
There should be no limit for defining elections as valid (the poll asks about the validity I presume?): if people won't bother to vote no matter what, it shouldn't mean that the country is directed into chaos due to the continuously failing elections and raise of extremist parties & persons. If it would require that at least 50% from people (who can vote) to vote in order to make elections valid, for example most US congressional elections would have had to be organized again.
I see that at least 50,1% turnout will represent "the will of the people", that is a majority. Very small one but still a majority though in theory that 50,1% represent the will of the people for 100%: to be simplistic, people who don't bother to vote don't have a political will, otherwise they would have voted.
I didn't make it!
I agree with what has been said before. If you don't vote that is absolutely your problem, and you have no right to complain. You can always find someone to vote for, even in the U.S. Even if the third parties don't win they often affect the following presidency anyways. When a third party gets a large number of votes the Dems and Republicans look at it and say "Well, I guess many people feel this other party is right, maybe I should into fixing some of their complaints."
Heaven's gonna burn your eyes
16th April 2005
Err, yes, the poll does refer to validity. There was an error when I posted the thread, and I lost the original question I had.