Posts tagged voting

1) The opinions of high and low incomevoters are highly correlated; the legislator’s vote often reflects the desire of both.

2) What differences in representation by income exist, vary by legislator party. Republicans more often vote the will of their higher income over their lower income constituents; Democratic legislators do the reverse.

3) Differences in representation by income are largely explained by the correlation between constituent income and party affiliation

Fascinating… and yet I know that no politicians, particularly not those from the left, will drop the story that the poor think differently from the rich, and are not well represented in Parliament.

They won’t drop it because the story is essential to explaining the differences between the way of thinking of the political parties, and thus, they think, critical to them being elected.

An intriguing study from Waikato University finds that distance to polling stations affects likelihood of voting. In fact, each kilometre from a polling station to homes reduces turnout by one percentage point.

The researches said that when the time costs of traveling to vote are $10, the national turnout falls by seven percentage points. Bizarrely, those in urban areas need even less distance before they give up the idea of voting. A $10 cost of getting to the polling station reduces turnout by 20 percentage points.

The dissuasive impact of rather small distances speaks volumes about the lack of value people put on voting.

Why do they do this? I’ll hazard a guess. The idea that your vote counts is bunk. Usually, in terms of sheer numbers, your vote doesn’t matter. People know this intuitively. They also “know” that once they’ve voted for a Government, they have little say on what happens next. And they “know” that they’re likely to be unhappy with some of the outcomes of the Government.

By placing a price as low as $10 on the ‘price’ of voting, the Waikato study proves that these factors are considerable.

The lesson is that politicians need give people reasons to vote. they need to work much harder than they think they do, and they need to focus much more on voters than their opponents.

Law makers think the public is too fickle and shallow to be trusted to talk to each other without changing their minds. That’s the core principle behind the 1993 law preventing ‘publishing’ of political statements on election-day.

The decision by the Electoral Commission to warn people to close down internet forums has highlighted Part 6 of the Electoral Act 1993 , which governs “Interfering with or influencing voters”.

The law states that it is an offence on election day if someone “exhibits in or in view of any public place, or publishes, or distributes, or broadcasts, (i) any statement advising or intended or likely to influence any elector as to the candidate or party for whom the elector should or should not vote; or (ii) any statement advising or intended or likely to influence any elector to abstain from voting;”

A related paragraph implies that this section covers the internet. It specifically lists reasons why a “website” would be allowed to carry such statements, such as publication prior to election day. 

The law has drawn commentary because it appears to be anachronistic in light of the liveliness and ubiquity of social media. Commentators think that either the law is silly given our new ways of communicating inter-personally, or that it seems ridiculously impractical given the weight of social media chat. 

Few people see chatter over social media as “publication”. They think of social media as a means of sharing ideas they would happily vocalise if they were in physical proximity of the others they are chatting with.

Pragmatically, perhaps more than on a free speech principle, the law doesn’t stop people talking socially - ie. in the physical presence of each other - about their political preferences. It does stop someone doing it if they are “campaigning”.

Some commentators say the law raises the solemnity of election day, and provides space for voters to make their choice free of clutter.

The very idea of solemnity of voting day is ridiculous. Politics and voting is not  rarefied, restrained, and considered. It’s boisterous and contentious; as befits a nation carving out a common ideology.

Stupidly, the law has been usurped by itself. The same law that protects voters from campaigning on election day, allows people to vote early - during the campaigning period.

The real reason for the law is a political one: parties want to stop each other getting to voters on their ways to the polls. And why do they want to do that? Because they believe voters are shallow enough to be swayed by a last minute appeal. The law was made by politicians who wanted to protect the votes they might have built up through campaigning. They don’t want their opposition to wreck it all by grabbing the voter outside the election booth.

The only reason this idea worries politicians is that they believe people vote without commitment and without rationale. They think people are shallow enough to respond to cheap last minute appeals.

If that’s what politicians think about us, then the solemnity of election day is a sham.