[jozo]

Your vote rarely matter from an individual perspective, but there are still reasons for voting.

1. You vote out of solidarity to the people in a similar situation as you are and to represent that perspective on issues. If you feel strongly about something you would want others with the same perspective to also take part.

2. You vote as a role model for your friends and family and to give them a fair chance to cast their vote. If you don't set a good example for others, e.g. your kids, they're not going to have a fair chance to choose if they want to vote or not.

3. You vote to show support for a system where people have the right to vote, even if it's flawed. It's also out of respect to those who fought and those who continue to fight for the right to vote.

4. You vote to consistently show that you cannot be manipulated to not express your opinion. For instance moving election dates, changing locations of polling stations, saying that you shouldn't vote if you not informed etc.

5. You vote to question your own motives not to vote. If you have the conviction not to vote, then there shouldn't be a reason not to go through the voting process and casting either a blank/invalid vote or choosing not to vote at the absolute last moment. If you can't do this it's more likely that you are abstaining from voting out of convenience, not conviction.

What I find strange is that people generally don't seem to have a problem with offering their opinion outside of elections, not least on the Internet. I guess it has to do with having higher expectations when it comes to elections.

Democracy is based on people stepping up, coming together and making their voice heard. Voting was never meant to reflect the opinions of an individual, but rather the opinions of a movement.

[jasonkester]

1. You vote out of solidarity to the group of people who share your situation, faith, occupation etc. If you felt strongly about something you would want others who agreed to also take part.

Please don't do that. If you're going to vote, do it about things you care about after having considered all sides, and without first checking whether it's the way everybody around you is voting.

[jozo]

I clarified a bit what I meant in my post before I realized you had replied. I'm not talking about asking your friends what they want, but representing your perspective based on your situation, education, background etc. As an example, most people here have a unique perspective on technology based on those factors. I'm not very familiar with how elections work in the US, but if possible I would rather people here voted for someone technology friendly than not at all.

[jasonkester]

I think we're clear on what you're saying. And I still think it's a bad thing.

Vote on a case-by-case basis, without bias from your group or political party. Or please don't vote.

[jozo]

I'm sorry but I frankly don't get what you are saying. Democracies are generally based on representation, where you elect someone to represent your values and what's important to you. I don't know how you would do this without taking your previous experiences into account. I also don't get where you got bias from group or political party from. The group I referred to wasn't an actual group, but a representation of people with similar experiences. I'm not saying these people will come to the same conclusion based on those experience, but they still represent a shared part of what is going on in society.

I would understand if you said that people should stay informed, but asking people not to vote seems undemocratic to me. Democracies are still supposed to be a reflection of the people. Not a reflection of those who had the opportunity to evaluate every issue without consideration of previous experiences. It seems to me you're blaming voters for something that is the responsibility of politicians. As a voter you have the right to vote even if you're wrong. I can't really make my point any clearer than this without seeming condescending, so this will be my last post in this exchange.