But is it playing devil's advocate when you actually believe the argument advanced, and you're defending the relatively functional status quo?

What you call "apathy" seems both rational for the individuals who practice it, and may contribute to "better" results than the next-best-alternatives: casting uninformed votes or pursuing just enough additional information to cast an overconfident but still misguided vote.

Gordon I can't believe you actually believe that. :-) You're essentially trying to argue that lack of participation in the elective process because "they have better things to do with their time" is a valid excuse for not educating themself on the issues and then voting.

And then you argue "American "apathy" and low turnout aren't necessarily sad or shameful -- and they might just be positive factors improving the wisdom and stability of our governance". :-)

Your playing devils advocate. :-)

Sure, if an issue is important to you, you should educate yourself. But such education is not free or effortless. There are many issues on which any given voter will rightly be largely indifferent -- and indeed entire elections where no one issue or candidate is interesting enough to warrant research, to the exclusion of other worthwhile activities.

So what some people call "apathy" I see as rather enlightened activity, which tends to benefit the country as a whole. People who don't care, and aren't informed, don't mess up the election -- and instead devote their limited time and energy to things that are important to them.

That vote -- casting your precious time towards the activities most compelling to you -- is a profoundly democratic act.

Meanwhile, the votes of those intensely interested and informed have a greater influence, because the disinterested have bowed out, delegating the decision to others.

American "apathy" and low turnout aren't necessarily sad or shameful -- and they might just be positive factors improving the wisdom and stability of our governance.

I disagree that it's admirable behavior Gordon. What would be more admirable is educating yourself on the issues. In the US we suffer the greatest voter apathy of any democratic country. That is truly sad. I do agree people should not vote if they haven't educated themselves tho, as to do so is a randomization of democracy.

Choosing not to vote, because you care or know little about particular candidates or issues, is not just a valid behavior, it's admirable. Unenthusiastic votes cast out of guilt rather than informed concern do actual damage to a democracy: by randomizing outcomes, by diluting the franchise of those who do know and care, and by further encouraging superficial campaigns designed to manipulate the inattentive.