The Pros And Cons Of Voting

The three democratic rights I have chosen are the right to initiative, referendum, and recall of elected officials. The use of ballot initiatives, referendums, and recall elections is growing rapidly. Initiatives permit voters to bypass their state legislatures so as to govern bodies enough marks on petitions to place proposed statuses and, in some states, constitutional amendments specifically on the ballot. Referendums require that certain categories of legislation, for instance, those expected to raise cash by issuing bonds, be put on the ballot for public approval; voters can also utilize referendums to cancel laws that are already passed by the state legislature. A recall election allows citizens vote on whether to remove officeholders

Voting has not always been as easy as it is today. It is interesting to examine how far America has progressed in its process of allowing different types of people to be able to vote. Voting was once aimed at a particular group of people, which were white males that owned their own property. Today, most people over the age of eighteen can vote, except for the mentally incompetent or people who have been convicted of major felonies in some states. The decline of voter participation has always been a debate in the public arena. According to McDonald and Popkin, it is “the most important, most familiar, most analyzed, and most conjectured trend in recent American political history (2001, 963)” The question is, how important is voter

“Your vote is your voice as an American citizen. It's your opportunity to be heard, to hold elected officials accountable for their elections and to have a say in important issues that affect your community. On Election Day, every vote matters”. Anonymous

Mandatory voting would greatly benefit our democracy. “Requiring people to vote in national elections once every two years would reinforce the principle of reciprocity at the heart of citizenship.” (Text 1, Lines 22-24) If this would go forward, our democracy would be a true and inclusive by making people vote for what they believe in. Citizens that vote, no matter their status, would make the United States a truly democratic

Suffrage has been a universal right in the works for well over centuries in America. At its inception, the United States of America only let landowning Caucasian men to vote, while excluding minorities and women. With copious amounts of protest, those groups eventually got their suffrage, and now voting is comfortably open to anyone eighteen or older. One would assume that with such open doors for voting, that the vast majority of people would line up at their voting booths and cast their ballots with glee. Much to the detriment of this assumption, voting percentages are painfully low and those that do vote tend to be either incredibly biased towards their political party or too old to see the effects of their votes come into play. Thus, by lowering the voting age to sixteen, there would be more diversity in the ballots, a larger voting turnout consistently, and little to no downside for doing so.

If not a single citizen were to participate in a democracy, that democracy would cease to exist. The very idea of a democracy is the notion that the people are in power and, therefore, will participate. Nevertheless, the trends of American voters in recent years have revealed that turnout is at a low point. According to Thomas Cavanagh, since the peek of electoral participation in post war 1960, voter-turnout has continually been on the decline (53). In other words, people just aren’t participating in the voting process as they used to. Moreover, this trend of low turnout doesn’t seem to occur only in less exposed congressional elections. Today, even in the highly publicized, closely contested, and salient presidential elections, only about 60% of the eligible voters participate—which is relatively low compared to the functioning democracies of Europe, where turnout consistently averages around 80% (The Case 591). The question for political scientists then becomes whether or not this trend of low voter turnout in American elections affects the government’s representation of its constituents (Teixeira 152). Put differently, do the results of a low turnout election actually represent the will of the people? Some political scientists assert that it does not, and believe that compulsory voting would be the quickest and most effective way to end this hindrance on representative democracy. Others, however, see it differently, and believe there is a set of traits that

Since the days that our ancestors and founder fathers have made our country a constitutional republic, we have followed our laws and rights with much joy. This also includes our right to vote for who can be in charge of our country. When it was first suggested, everyone thought it was an amazing privladge, but is this dwindling as the years go by? The answer is yes, many people decide every couple of years that it is useless to vote, because our government is a representative one, but what if I told you, that your own home town isn’t?

Gelman quotes Highton and Wolfinger from a study conducted in 1999, stating that, “Analyses of survey data show that no objectively achieved increase in turnout -- including compulsory voting -- would be a boon to progressive causes or Democratic candidates. Simply put, voters differ minimally from all citizens; outcomes would not change if everyone voted” (Highton and Wolfinger, 1999). In addition to this statement, Gelman goes on to argue that increased voter turnout would not change the outcome of the election, but it would only serve to magnify the margin between the victor and the defeated party. Contrary to Gelman’s beliefs, many Americans

The mass media is attacking Trump and not giving him a chance govern the United States of America.

Nina Jaffee-Geffner believes that “Politicians are supposed to represent the interests of all citizens, it is especially important that as much of the population votes as possible. When voter participation rates are low, a small minority often ends up controlling leadership and policy decisions.” She continues with saying that often lower-income, younger and non-white voters are ignored or not appropriately represented by the political officials. Democracies are not completely successful if groups of individuals (minorities and people of color), are not having their needs met by their government. Jaffee-Geffner also points out that more diverse political opinions and ideologies which minimizes political polarization. It can be argued that those with intense political goals will vote and dominate elections or at least sway the political atmosphere. Mandatory voting will also cause the process of voting to be simpler and easier, more voting polls and transportation systems provided. Zac Lee Rigg and Nando Vila give the argument that “Currently, the United States is an oligarchy…government policy changes since 1981 overwhelmingly cater to the rich and special interests.” An easy way to avoid this, is to increase the pooling size. Simple statistics knowledge proves that the larger the sample size (voter turnout) means the closer the results will be to the average of the general population. They also pose the thought that if low-income and those underserved vote, politicians would gear their campaigns to include them, educating them and trying to sway their

The theory of voting in the United States is known as ”The Grand Experiment,” because it is the first country to exist and be formed "by the people, for the people" and is based on democracy and liberty. The United States gave power to the people, and let them be the rulers of the government, instead of like the traditional way, where the government rules the people. It was warned by the founding fathers that this state would always be under attack and subject to "change" if it were not for the vigilance of the people. When the people rely on big government they flirt with the loss of this grand experiment. This “Grand Experiment” let the public vote. Having that right makes the public feel like they are the ones making the decision; they are the ones choosing what happens. An example of this could be voting on a referendum, because it gives them a specific thing to vote on. We know that most everything has logic behind it and with the government, it is to gains votes. To do this the government must find the relationship between what it does and follows to how the citizens vote. Citizens usually act rationally when trying to decide who or what to vote for. This means that citizens choose to vote for whatever and whoever will benefit them the most. All this means is that as humans we are naturally shellfish and will do what it takes to

Voting is a “valuable privilege” (Miller), that many eligible voters take for granted. Voter apathy is an issue in America. Many eligible voters decide not to vote either because of political disagreements, political fatigue, or because of the registration process. These eligible voters are adults, they are mature and although there can not be sufficient time in the day for them to vote, it is in a way their duty to do so but they still don’t do it. Teenagers should not be given the opportunity to vote. Although there are several of teenagers that are mature and can make an appropriate decision, there are also teenagers that are not mature enough. Teenagers should not be given the right to vote until they are eighteen because of the lack

If the people are not interested in voting, all those proposals will not become a reality, and the opposite candidate might put in place his/her political party agenda; usually, the contrary ideas of the candidate they support.

Another big idea about people not voting is most people are unaware of their surroundings, basically they don’t have the skills and knowledge to vote. A great example for this type of situation like this is the election of 2000 when George Bush surprising won the election against Al Gore. The Elections was winding down to one state and that was Florida and at the time which was a blue Democratic state. Cause the lack of skills the citizens not able to completely finish the ballout and that resulted in many uncounted votes. Now if things would have happened differently our society can have been on a different course for example 9/11 would had a good chance of not happening and more possibilities. Next the knowledge many Americans have about

Allowing citizens to choose whether or not they vote, a practice restricted in certain democracies like Australia, can diminish the percentage of people who vote based on pure passion. Also, it is to be noted that citizens vote based on self-interest, and because governments aim to please the majority of their citizens, having everyone vote is a helpful tool in determining what would benefit the majority of people.