TED Conversations

Dyed All Hues

Thinker and Experimenter,

TEDCRED 30+

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

What is your argument for or against "Voter Apathy"?

What is "voter apathy"?

People should always vote, right?

If you do vote, can you affect a system of government, or if you don't vote, can that have a greater impact on a system of government?

Ye or Ne?

Topics: voter apathy
+2
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Oct 16 2012: I believe that voter apathy is the result of marginalization. It is the result of a people believing their voice doesn't matter. And who's to blame them? If you think about it, the voice of the average person really doesn't matter. I have always believed that a representational republic doesn't really work... especially for a country the size of the US. Can a small fistful of people really believe that they are representing millions in Congress or the Senate? Ordinary people can't influence a system we have by merely voting. Money does.

    The most effective government should be one that includes all citizens. There is more wisdom in ten individuals than one. There is more strength in collaboration than individualism. If people are given a chance in influencing government policy directly, their apathy would no longer be rationalized. They would see that in the process of debating and creating policy, everyone should be heard and included in the democratic process.

    Therefore, voter apathy can be eliminated if we create a system of government that is participatory, collaborative and inclusive. People think they're votes don't matter right now, and with good reason. Take that reason away, and I guarantee that there could be massive change in the way we do our politics and voting.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.