Most countries choose party candidates either by closed membership votes ('member' normally meaning 'paying a subscription') or by a committee with even less public input. 10% is impressive by international standards.

A party choosing their candidate has turned into the main event.

The more people voting, the more people you say are being manipulated. Are you saying the US should get rid of primaries?

You've managed to prove your assertion by making just the right assumption.

This is called begging the question. Beggars tend to produce invalid conclusions.

I suppose that if people were compelled to vote under threat of punitive fines and incarceration, that, too, would be illegitimate. If you voluntarily vote you're not in a democracy, if you involuntarily vote you're not in a democracy. Game, set, match.

I vote on everything. We have early voting starting on Monday, just for the run-off for one school board member and I will be there to cast my vote. I hope that the GOV drive is going to work here in Texas to get more Democrats out to vote in the fall elections. But to quote the old saying, "you can take a horse to water, but you can't make him drink".

Where did they have a 10% turnout?

Turnout in similar primary elections this century

(Iowa)

2012: about 133,000 Republicans & fewer than 60,000 Democrats
2010: about 230,000 Republicans & just over 73,000 Democrats
2008: about 105,000 Democrats and nearly 86,000 Republicans
2006: about 152,000 Democrats and over 85,000 Republicans
2004: more than 88,000 Republicans and over 76,000 Democrats
2002: over 206,000 Republicans and about 97,000 Democrats
Recent primary turnout as a percentage of active registered voters
2012: 10.3%
2010: 15.5%
2008: 9.9%
2006: 12.4%
2004: 9.0%
2002: 16.6%

http://www.radioiowa.com/2014/06/03/turn-out-expectations-average-to-below-average-in-iowas-2014-primary/

But you're generalizing about the entire US.

They were expecting it well under.

If people choose not to do so, that's their decision, and not a problem in itself.

A non-working democracy is when people want to participate in politics and are prevented from doing so by undemocratic means.

It may indicate a democracy where the voters don't see much difference between the parties, which is a problem, but not the same thing as democracy itself not working.

Which we do, in spades

We also have a very cynical electorate, for the record.

raise awareness and raise responsibility.

PDF
The Case for Mandatory Voting in Canada
Mac Harb

The decline in voter turnout over the last several elections is of great concern to everyone interested in politics and parliamentary government. Many ideas have been put forth about how to address this problem including a recent Bill that would provide for a system of compulsory voting similar to that used in several other countries. The following article is based on the speech at second reading by the sponsor of Bill S-22.

Our democracy depends upon the active participation of its citizens, and, while voting is only one element of political engagement, it remains the very foundation of our democracy. Reinforcing this foundation is the goal of Bill S-22, which will establish mandatory voting in Canada.

This legislation is a direct response to a rising electoral crisis. Voter turnout has been on the decline in Canada since the 1960s, reaching a record low of just 60.9 per cent in the 2004 election. Other Western democracies are also experiencing the same dramatic drop. Only 55.3 per cent of Americans voted in the 2004 presidential election, and the 2001 British general election recorded a turnout of just 57.6 per cent.

http://www.revparl.ca/english/issue.asp?art=1140&param=168

the problem is that republicans would oppose it because greater turnout usually hurts them.

There was just an election last week (these were for provincial, city, and education superintendent) and the turn out was about 56%. I prodded my students to vote because many were voting for the first time.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

It couldn't pass a laugh test under the First Amendment at the Supreme Court.

As posted earlier, most of the electorate are idiots. I don't want uninformed idiots voting.

When they do, we get movie stars:

Ronald Reagan,
Arnold,
Clint Eastwood,
Fred Thomas,
Sonny Bono,

and a couple others I forget.


We'd have President Kim Kardashion and Vice-President Bruce Willis.

Granted that was a record low, but it's still quite a bit higher than what you are using as an example.

Make sure people are informed, then make sure they vote.

I don't agree with mandatory voting, and I don't think the supreme court would uphold it.

People have a first amendment right to protest, and not voing can be a form of protest.

They are dying to spread corporate influence and corruption and to ensure markets. Democracy is the excuse used to install usually despotic leaders or gangs of thugs.

I believe they had a 99% turnout in their last election...

used by a police state to keep tabs of the population are the same exact thing as I don't know. Australia, where indeed it is mandatory to vote with a civil fine when you don't I also know that you are part of the party machinery that benefits from very low voting numbers... so keep at it chuckles.

What's going on now is a widespread abdication of responsibility.

It is the moment people simply realize the vote does not matter, so why bother? Some history helps. Why the vote was not a priority the last time around. People did it if they remembered, but the streets and the strike were far more effective.

If people are unwilling to effect change in the easiest possible way, it's hard to see why far more difficult and costlier ways are going to be successful.

And people have figured this out. Party bosses and corps chose the candidates. And in oligarchies voting might be important, but change comes from the streets.

It was that way in the 1880s and it is that way now.

Before you say it, we vote, but we expect zero change to come from it

of us do.

And even among those who do, very, very few are paying any attention. Of the 10% that show up for the primaries,
the vast majority don't know or really care what their candidate's position is, and many do a web search an hour
before to see who seems better.

On things like candidates and primaries...

But those who show up to the primaries do, for the most part know at least top level candidates. Judicial elections and boards of education... Another story regardless of race

I’ve mostly heard cheap platitudes when people explain why they support a particular candidate over another (that is, those who aren't making up their minds at the polls, which many are):

”They’re good on the environment.”
“Well, yes, everyone who is running is good on the environment – why do you like this person?”
“Well, they work really hard.”
“Can you give an example?”
“Well, uhh…”

Though I have to say, I’ve seen this kind of behavior even with people volunteering for presidential campaigns.

We have a number of national political writers here, and when they talk about the local political scene, they act like it’s a joke. One is a supposed Liberal that supported a Norquist supporter, and recently was soliciting suggestions for the mayoral race a day before. Another writer bragged about writing in nonsense names for some of the positions. These are supposed political thought leaders, proud of their ignorance.

It’s probable that more will have to be done in the streets, but not because we’re an oligarchy, rather because were an apathetocracy. The goal should be to get people to perform mindful voting, and to bring about the same successes we’ve seen on gay rights, ending marijuana prohibition, and single-payer health (in Vermont).

But you should know... This the local scene matters not starts with both national parties.

They said, I got pretty good reasons to vote for the tea party guy who lost at the tea party event. Mind you I do not agree, but it was beyond the argle bargle the other guy is openly gay. That was there, but they actually gave solid reasons beyond the life issues. That is always expected

Many of us have argued for over a decade the local scene matters. But from covering the local scene I know the Republicans give it slightly less lip service.

I also know that even that low level people outside central committees have very little input as well.

party much at all.

Healthcare, school closings, minimum wage, equal rights, environmental issues, progressive taxation, infrastructure spending, public financing of elections, criminal justice, corporate donations - all issues that they have control over. And to be fair, they've actually been good on a number of them, but those usually are issues that people let them know they will vote/volunteer for. But the issues people show they don't care about naturally don't get dealt with.

unless you are a member of the central committee of your local Democratic Party, or influential in other ways (local donor) your power to influence who is endorsed by the party is next to nil. Granted this rule of thumb is not the case in some smaller municipalities, but in large urban areas the machine is pretty much who choses who is endorsed by the party. That includes supposedly non partisan races, like my city. And the machine also controls who runs in every city at a county level.

Also, city councils are very much concerned with filling potholes. There are just so many ways you can do that. Off the record my local council members joke that you can either fill it from the right, or the left, but the result is the same.

Regardless, you changed the subject. And I fully agree with you, most people do not realize just how important local offices are. But the national party, separate from the 50 state parties, really do not care what happens in Biloxi Miss, or San Diego CA. They start to care in places like NYC and Los Angeles, and that is just maybe.

Yes, some cities (including mine) are having conversations about minimum wages. Hell, a few are even talking living wages (for the record the Seattle Mayor who just had Council pass a 15 dollar living wage ordinance, is not a Dem or an R. She is a socialist. But for the most part they are all concerned on keeping those pot holes at bay, They are the true measure of a successful municipal government. This is a truism that you learn after you cover enough of it. Sooner or later things come back to streets, potholes, cops and fire engines.

I have waged the crusade that local government matters here, but to be honest, take the baton and run with it. I am not the one you need to convince on that account. But the other tens of thousands of members do, and that includes the few who "cover national news" and do not give a shit what happens locally. Hell, during the Filner scandal I was told that it did not matter... so with that, good luck fighting that fight. In some ways, I cover my local news, and at times I bother posting here, but for the most part, I no longer do. And the times I do, either it is fun, go to the photography section for the three essays on the county fair. or have to do with hard hitting regional policy matters, that could and should go national. But they never do, and that has to do with the power games.

Speaking of local government, I gotta write a story... you caught me while running errands and lunch after gathering the data in the morning. And no, while the story is important, it really does not matter to the people here.

issues involved being mainly about filling pot holes. Granted, our councilmembers are more like state senators/representatives in many ways, so that might be more of an apt comparison. Still, each year is filled with important local political battles, and ones that most people are completely oblivious about.

And I think talking about this is very much addressing the subject at hand, because it underscores just how disconnected most people are from the political decisions that affect their lives, and just how little effort goes into activism and voting. Particularly because the local scene has such a large impact on most people’s lives, because it serves as a feeder for the national level, it’s a huge sign that so many are disconnected. The topic at hand, extremely low primary turnouts, reflect the fact that most people just aren’t involved in the political process for the most part.

cannot make a difference with who is nominated for office, or why.

I have been told as much more than once.

And until people feel that voting makes a difference, and that means machines, (local and national) do not take the precedence they do...

Look, I grew up in a country where we knew we lived in an oligarchy. We bothered to vote, in fact our voting numbers were much higher than those of Americans, but we all knew we were engaging in a futile exercise. But we cynically said, we needed to stay in practice for when it mattered.

When I talk to voters in my local area I hear the same kind of cynicism.

When I moved to the States I could not vote. Immigrants do not vote. Once I got the right to vote, I will vote in every election, but I know it is the exact same effect as when I was back home voting. The effect is next to none, if at all. And I do not think you can tell me I do not get it. I am willing to bet I have sat at more government meetings than I care to think about, or than most here.

I get it how it works, and when voters, or chiefly ex-voters, tell me why they no longer bother, I can only think of the glorious days of the 1880s. My degree is in History and the Gilded Age is very close to today. Oh and the power structures, for both parties, like it that way. In fact, it makes voter suppression that much easier.

Voters need a stake, and right now they simply feel they do not have one. And that is a function of deep dysfunction.

the participation rate is even more dismal that 10%. That is why the Iowa GOP produces such extreme candidates despite the fact that we are purple and not deep red like Tx.

The dems are no prize either This year we my not even have a primary challenge for Clinton. The big wig dems have just decided to dispense with them altogether and anoint a candidate that will most certainly be way more conservative on Foreign Policy and Economic Policy than the majority of rank and file Dems are. This is being done for the benefit of the Wall Street and Aipac lobbies.

I really don't mind people who know nothing about candidates and issues and who are not involved not voting.

They vote for movie stars. That's how we got Ronald Reagan, Arnold S., and various others.

If they voted, Kim Kardashion would be president.

I think the Republican party would probably be well served to stop having primaries. One of the big problems they had in the last election was that their candidates had to trash each other while trying to appeal to the most lunatic of the lunatic fringe and in the process scared the general voting public away.

Almost all political parties outside America choose local delegates of their party to go to a central convention to cast votes, not some "official" State vote paid for by the taxpayer.

Taxpayers paying for political party nominations is crazy.