Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
9 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Low voter turnout has consequences (Original Post) desmiller Feb 2016 OP
K&R LW1977 Feb 2016 #1
agree thanks mgmaggiemg Feb 2016 #2
Wrong Wibly Feb 2016 #3
what a joke saturnsring Feb 2016 #5
This message was self-deleted by its author IHateTheGOP Feb 2016 #6
yup like this: Governor John Kasich Signs Ohio Bill to Cut Planned Parenthood Funding saturnsring Feb 2016 #4
You're correct. And that's why Bernie Sanders is important. He energizes the vote. johnlucas Feb 2016 #7
Voter turnout for 2 instead of 7 dem nominees will be lower bjobotts Feb 2016 #8
I don't understand why you need armies of people to drag voters to the polls Red Knight Feb 2016 #9

Wibly

(613 posts)
3. Wrong
Sun Feb 21, 2016, 07:01 PM
Feb 2016

Voting Clinton will only prolong the long slow death of the middle class, and put a moderate on the supreme court.
Her voting record, her husbands record, and their ties to corporate industrialists makes that much clear.
Sanders should be the nominee, and failing that, he should run as an independent.

Response to Wibly (Reply #3)

 

johnlucas

(1,250 posts)
7. You're correct. And that's why Bernie Sanders is important. He energizes the vote.
Mon Feb 22, 2016, 12:28 AM
Feb 2016

If you to prevent the low turnout problem, make Bernie Sanders the Democratic nominee.
Time to stop voting scared & voting out of misplaced loyalties.
It's time to change this party once & for all.

BERN Baby BERN
John Lucas

 

bjobotts

(9,141 posts)
8. Voter turnout for 2 instead of 7 dem nominees will be lower
Mon Feb 22, 2016, 12:44 AM
Feb 2016

Because there were 5 candidate organizations less out there pounding the pavement to get voters out. Concentrate on the general for voter turnout otherwise your comparing apples and oranges. Sanders will be the harder candidate to defeat according to the current RNC chairmanj and he's right. Clinton comes with too much baggage and as a corporate dem will not do as well against Trump. Her campaign economic advisor is a Goldman-Sachs ex who wrote and slipped in the Grahm-Leach- Bliley bill into an ominus bill to keep the government funded and it caused the current Tax payer bailout of the Banks and Wall street for all the derivitive action. Hartmann has a post on DU explaining how she is lying about her corporate ties. Time to stop pretending she is what you want her to be and start looking at what she really is...willing to say and do anything to be president. She is not trust worthy even though she's better than any republican but that is such a low bar.

Red Knight

(704 posts)
9. I don't understand why you need armies of people to drag voters to the polls
Mon Feb 22, 2016, 07:59 AM
Feb 2016

I don't understand this country and its apathy toward voting.

Look, I get the corruption. I get the sell-outs that promise you one thing and deliver another and of course I worry about fair elections.

Having said that I will always walk into that booth to have my voice heard. Even if it's only for myself I'll do it.

And it isn't just voting--it's ignorance of the politicians and their programs. So many people have no clue what they're voting for and often(when I talk to a lot of non-voters) don't even know or care who is running. I don't know how or if it's possible to motivate them under any circumstances.

I know the quote is used not quite how Joeseph de Maistre meant but it absolutely fits in the proper context of today's apathy:

"Every nation has the government it deserves."

This is particularly true in a democracy in this day and age with so much information at your fingertips.

You can't make people care--and you can't argue with them.

In the 1800s voter turnout was in the 70 and 80 percent range.

It really dropped in the 1900s and since 1968 we haven't hit 60 percent.

This is for presidential elections.

I would love to find if the low turnout this year is because of usual voters not showing up or the lack of new voters. Is it some combination of both?

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Video & Multimedia»Low voter turnout has con...