Super interesting Kian. Thank you for sharing that. When I talk to Americans who don’t vote, the most common response I have heard is that their one vote won’t make any difference with regard to the outcome. It just doesn’t matter. So if it is super easy one might still vote, but if that is the underpying beleif AND one does not have a car to get to the polls or the lines are long, or any other challenge presents itself, then people don’t vote.
In Argentina, where I lived for 15 years, every resident of voting age required by law to vote and people can face fines if they do not. Voting is held on a Sunday and almost all businesses are required to be closed that day. Of course Americans defense of individual rights prohibits us fro even thinking about mandatory voting, but it is amazing to see how engaged the entire public is in electing their leaders.
Kudos to Kian for his provocative argument: that the apparently similar phenomenon of low turnout in Tehran and NYC reflects quite different, even opposite, voters' motivations. I find his interpretation of the reason for low turnout in Tehran highly persuasive. However, I agree with Sibylle Johner that low turnout in NYC (and, more generally, U.S. elections) is not simply an indication of tacit consent/authorization of the incumbent government/political system, although I assume she'd agree that this is part of the explanation. Although I also agree with her claim the importance of anger and disillusionment, I'd add several other reasons for low turnout: ignorance, including (for some) ignorance that an election is even taking place, as well as ignorance about the need to register to be eligible to vote, the location of one's polling station, the hours when one can vote, etc. Another reason, linked to the preceding: multiple procedures that reduce the likelihood of voting, including the need to register to vote, the limited hours when one can vote, limited number of polling stations, the fact that elections in the U.S. are held on a working day (Tuesday) rather than on a holiday--Sunday--as is the case in most liberal democracies, the fact that in many (most?) states former felons are ineligible to vote, etc. A third reason, related to the second: incumbent legislators intentionally restricting voting to increase their chance of re-election, i.e., voter suppression: requiring a government-issued photo ID, reducing the number of polling stations, limiting early voting, etc. In brief, non-voters abstain because of (1) tacit consent/satisfaction with the status quo [Kian's explanation), (2) disillusionment/anger with the choices offered or the entire political system [Sibylle's explanation], and (3) voter suppression, broadly defined [MK's suggestion]. Although all three are doubtless influential, I suspect that nos. 2 and 3 outweigh no. 1.
Hi there! So far I only read the NYC portion of your essay. I clicked on the link for data about non-voters and was surprised to see that it was data from 2006. Surely a lot has changed in the last 15 years?! I do not have scientific polls at my disposal, but I've spent quite a bit of time talking to people in the streets lately. Most people who said they didn't vote made it clear that it was out of anger at the system and/or disillusionment with electoral politics. Tacit agreement is not the sense I got from the non-voters I encountered. Many of them commented that voting didn't make a difference for their lives. Others, like UWSers, who are more affluent and are much happier with the status quo DO vote.
Also, about 10 days ago, De Blasio released the numbers that show that crime is actually back down compared to last year. I assume it was on purpose that these numbers were only released after the budget which increased $$ going to the NYPD was passed. In any case, I'm surprised you went with the "dangerous crime is up" narrative. In my view this is entirely manufactured by the media and politicians (as well as parties) who are exploiting fears in order to win elections. The people who are propagating these fears don't really care about the crime because it affects mostly poorer neighborhoods. Furthermore, their "solutions" to prevent crime are not evidence-based (a good read about this could be Alex Vitale's "The End of Policing.")
I find your characterization of the US electio s as somehow being non dictatorial. The imposition if Joey Bidet and Quemala Harristein as president and consort a form of dictatorship of the most hypocrite sort. This was evident in the manner that the DNC imposed these two clowns over a host of other candidates with genuine programs for democratic change. Bidet was elected not because of who he is but who he was not. And the hypocrite falsity of his campaign is evident in hiw all promises of any progressive governance go down the drain whenever the matter in question arises to be dealt with. But of course this is what is to be expected in this empire of lies and the hypocrite republic on which it stands. No the USA is merely a dictatorship as murderous if not more than your friends in Teheran. Washington is simply more adept in its lies.
Super interesting Kian. Thank you for sharing that. When I talk to Americans who don’t vote, the most common response I have heard is that their one vote won’t make any difference with regard to the outcome. It just doesn’t matter. So if it is super easy one might still vote, but if that is the underpying beleif AND one does not have a car to get to the polls or the lines are long, or any other challenge presents itself, then people don’t vote.
In Argentina, where I lived for 15 years, every resident of voting age required by law to vote and people can face fines if they do not. Voting is held on a Sunday and almost all businesses are required to be closed that day. Of course Americans defense of individual rights prohibits us fro even thinking about mandatory voting, but it is amazing to see how engaged the entire public is in electing their leaders.
Kudos to Kian for his provocative argument: that the apparently similar phenomenon of low turnout in Tehran and NYC reflects quite different, even opposite, voters' motivations. I find his interpretation of the reason for low turnout in Tehran highly persuasive. However, I agree with Sibylle Johner that low turnout in NYC (and, more generally, U.S. elections) is not simply an indication of tacit consent/authorization of the incumbent government/political system, although I assume she'd agree that this is part of the explanation. Although I also agree with her claim the importance of anger and disillusionment, I'd add several other reasons for low turnout: ignorance, including (for some) ignorance that an election is even taking place, as well as ignorance about the need to register to be eligible to vote, the location of one's polling station, the hours when one can vote, etc. Another reason, linked to the preceding: multiple procedures that reduce the likelihood of voting, including the need to register to vote, the limited hours when one can vote, limited number of polling stations, the fact that elections in the U.S. are held on a working day (Tuesday) rather than on a holiday--Sunday--as is the case in most liberal democracies, the fact that in many (most?) states former felons are ineligible to vote, etc. A third reason, related to the second: incumbent legislators intentionally restricting voting to increase their chance of re-election, i.e., voter suppression: requiring a government-issued photo ID, reducing the number of polling stations, limiting early voting, etc. In brief, non-voters abstain because of (1) tacit consent/satisfaction with the status quo [Kian's explanation), (2) disillusionment/anger with the choices offered or the entire political system [Sibylle's explanation], and (3) voter suppression, broadly defined [MK's suggestion]. Although all three are doubtless influential, I suspect that nos. 2 and 3 outweigh no. 1.
Hi there! So far I only read the NYC portion of your essay. I clicked on the link for data about non-voters and was surprised to see that it was data from 2006. Surely a lot has changed in the last 15 years?! I do not have scientific polls at my disposal, but I've spent quite a bit of time talking to people in the streets lately. Most people who said they didn't vote made it clear that it was out of anger at the system and/or disillusionment with electoral politics. Tacit agreement is not the sense I got from the non-voters I encountered. Many of them commented that voting didn't make a difference for their lives. Others, like UWSers, who are more affluent and are much happier with the status quo DO vote.
Also, about 10 days ago, De Blasio released the numbers that show that crime is actually back down compared to last year. I assume it was on purpose that these numbers were only released after the budget which increased $$ going to the NYPD was passed. In any case, I'm surprised you went with the "dangerous crime is up" narrative. In my view this is entirely manufactured by the media and politicians (as well as parties) who are exploiting fears in order to win elections. The people who are propagating these fears don't really care about the crime because it affects mostly poorer neighborhoods. Furthermore, their "solutions" to prevent crime are not evidence-based (a good read about this could be Alex Vitale's "The End of Policing.")
I'll read your Iranian portion soon!
I find your characterization of the US electio s as somehow being non dictatorial. The imposition if Joey Bidet and Quemala Harristein as president and consort a form of dictatorship of the most hypocrite sort. This was evident in the manner that the DNC imposed these two clowns over a host of other candidates with genuine programs for democratic change. Bidet was elected not because of who he is but who he was not. And the hypocrite falsity of his campaign is evident in hiw all promises of any progressive governance go down the drain whenever the matter in question arises to be dealt with. But of course this is what is to be expected in this empire of lies and the hypocrite republic on which it stands. No the USA is merely a dictatorship as murderous if not more than your friends in Teheran. Washington is simply more adept in its lies.