By popular demand: This post gets its own thread -- Why US voter turnout is so low

Two whole people said this post should have its own thread -- two out of more than 100,000 -- which sounds like the will of the people to me. Anyway, the following was a reply to a thread re French voter turnout of more than 75 percent and contrasting that with the usual 45 percent or so who bother to vote in the US. Post follows:


I think there are at least two main reasons for low US voter turnout.

First, many people are just plain lazy. Many shun all things political, don't really know or care who represents them at local, state or federal levels, and just don't correlate voting with a citizen's obligation in a representative democracy. These people are the ones who say politics is boring, read the sports page or business section or comics exclusively, focus on job and/or family and/or acquisition of more and more consumer crap. Their only relationship to politics is when they bitch about taxes or some local bond issue that raises their property taxes a lousy five bucks a year to pay for a library extension or structural reinforcement at a local school.

They will never vote unless something horrible happens to them or their family -- like an assault on their wife or the kidnap-murder of one of their kids -- which will get them off their dead asses to vote for more money for the cops or stiffer jail sentences, like that three-strikes hog shit that was all the rage in the '90s. But that's it. They live like tourists, giving some money to a few local shops and driving the four blocks to the store for a big gulp and a couple of toxic-dogs. But they don't participate in the community and might as well be living in Uruguay for all sense of place they have, and their lack of connection with the locals and with their surroundings.

Secondly, and I'm getting closer to becoming a member of this group every four years, lots of people resent that the initial list of maybe 10 or 12 candidates, some of whom are fairly interesting and have actual ideas, is inevitably whittled down to the most mainstream, centrist, vanilla of the bunch -- first by the punditocracy, who tells everyone at every opportunity that so and so is unelectable, somebody else is too radical, a third lacks "gravitas," another voted against a DoD budget increase and is therefore "soft on terror," blah, blah, blah..-- and then that assessment goes on to pollute the primary system.

Because enough people believe this crap and take it to the voting booths with them on primary day, the mainstream, vanilla centrist always ends up on top and becomes the next useless, ceremonial head of state who won't deal with any of the problems that stem from America's enthusiastic love affair with radical capitalism. That love affair is exclusively a function of the American elite, corporations and others with wealth and power; the people would prefer a system that doesn't try to get them to work for nothing, denies them benefits, busts their unions, and uses the threat of "off-shoring" to keep them in line.

But the candidate who's been pre-selected by many of the very people with the most to gain from continuing the customary rape of the bottom 50 percent of the population is philosophically and politically incapable of effecting foundational change -- in fact, can't even discuss it without universal condemnation from the elites. So we're guaranteed another four years in which radical capitalism is deified; in which there's no possibility of true universal, single-payer health care; in which there's no possibility of legislation mandating public financing of campaigns; in which the Pentagon will get ever richer, at the expense of every single humanitarian program left standing after the republican chain saw clear-cut its way through town; in which more social control in the form of the idiotic "war on terror" will further repress the populace, even if the Oppressor in Chief is some Democratic smiley face claiming further repression is conducted with the very best of intentions.

And that's just the Democratic side. I suppose the same thing happens on the GOP side, except I imagine the search for the most vanilla centrist is replaced by the search for the most malevolent Himmler clone they can find.

But I object to a system that automatically excludes Dennis Kucinich from the "real" contenders just because some fucking lard ass think tank type -- usually from the Heritage Foundation or the AEI or some other Neanderthal group with a vested interest in weeding out any who might threaten the status quo -- says he's too far from the mainstream, isn’t tall enough and besides he doesn't have the greatest hair. Kucinich just happens to be the only candidate to advocate impeachment NOW, single-payer universal health care, getting out of Iraq NOW, impoverishing the Pentagon for a change, and using the money to fund sustainable energy research, ending the fictitious "war on terror" and going after the actual terrorists using proven police methods rather than invading armies, and reversing both patriot acts and the military commissions act NOW.

Now that's a candidate I can support and, in fact, have with money and other stuff. But we all know it's just pissing up a rope because we're going to get two pre-packaged cardboard cutouts -- one called a Democrat and the other a Republican -- who will stand for most of the same things, the Democrat a little lighter on domestic fascism, the Republican advocating spilling vats of blood all over the planet because "we're at war, dammit."

And, because we're treated as children by the US political movers and shakers, we're supposed to troop dutifully to the polls to ratify one of these two chosen representatives of the status quo. And we're even supposed to believe that, in a country with about 300 million people, these are the two best we could find.

If I didn't care about federal judicial appointments, creeping fascism at home, rampant acts of state sponsored terrorism abroad, state sanctioned ecocide, and the draining of what's left of the treasury to further enrich the execs and shareholders of the machinery of war, I'd damn well stay home myself.

wp

I would love to see a run off of Kucinich and Ron Paul... That would be a great race.

Also, I don't think that Kucinich is all that far left. I think that he is an average thinking person. He listens to the people an awful lot. What have the people wanted... health care, job security, securing the boarders, out of Iraq. I love his idea for a cabinet of peace. In this day of technology and information, we should have erased picking up weapons and opt for civil discourse. It is insane to want to start a war where people are forced to kill another human being. On top of that, now we are spreading nuclear waste all over with our wars of aggression.

not to mention a 'cowboy', albeit a rhinestone one. elect a macho man and you get macho results.

ellen fl

really wish to have full participation. I am speaking here
of the Powers that Be in each party. There is an awful lot
of evidence that both parties have bought into the myth that
this is a Conservative Country. Conservative Capitalism
by its nature creates a society in which there is a small group
of have mosts and have mores at the top and then a humongous group of havenots. This makes for a society in which a ruling class
really runs things amd call the shots. Keep this group happy
is all the politicians have to do. They have decided to ignore
the other half--after all "they are poor and uneducated and
probably will not know the difference and certainly will not
know how to complain. I have heard one of the most powerful
leaders in our party do an artful dodge when asked about this.
Anyone with common sense could have determined that he meant
we do not wish to expand our base.

What policies are ever instituted to help the poor??? No disrespect
to any group, but there are many many white poor people. Here is
where you find most non-voters.

When we established that our economy would be an investor economy
everything done must reflect investor's interest. Trade Policy,
Low Wages(less a Company pays out, the more can be returned to
investors: Low Wages in this country the same. Health Care Policy
is the same--as little cost to employer as possible. His only
concern is returns for Investor. Examples are numerous.
Investor societies work better if only a select group vote.
Forget the "riff =raff".

People do not vote because, they do not feel they have a stake
and nothing is really going to change. Many feel abandoned by
the Democratic Party. Until the 80s, when our Dems in Congress
and Senate, drank the Regan Kool-Aid and swore allegiance to
the Investor Class.

This is not Class Warfare..

hoping for a groundswell of voters to rise up and smite the kingmakers.

that centrism is what i dislike most about hrc. i would gladly support kucinich. how can we get him the nomination?

ellen fl

It's hard even for me (a self-described Poli-wonk) to swallow my passions and vote for the "lesser of two evils."

How can we expect the Sheeple to even consider voting as an important concept?

that the biggest mistake the founding fathers made was to make a knee-jerk reaction against a parlimentary form of government. I think the US would be highly benefited from a limited campaign period that was sparked by a vote of no confidence. The length of our primaries has become absurd to the point of laughter.

if they would have made it a National Holiday to vote like Australia and a minor infraction with a fine if ya didn't!

I think we need to do that as soon as possible. Of course, the downfall would be that MLK day would probably get the axe instead of adding another federal holiday (actually, you might need up to four if you were going to give a day off for the spring and fall election dates as well as the primary for each).

we vote on a Saturday (no mandated holiday) with booths open between 0800 and 1800. A fine of up to $50 applies for non voting, but any excuse eg sick, away on holidays etc is enough to have the fine waived.

Peace

a National Holiday in Australia but Saturdays are better than a Tuesday. Imagine all the voters we could get in if they didn't have to come after work! The repukes would go ballistic cause the more people voting the more they vote out fascists.

What if we had two or three days to vote?

shouldn't not be so Hard! But the repukes are making it harder and harder like it's not some crime or something!

do not vote responsibly. I hate the idea that informed votes are drowned out by uninformed votes. People who don't even bother to know where a candidate stands on the issues, or what the issues are, can easily be persuaded to vote for W because a W looks to them like someone they could have a beer with. They are also the ones who can't imagine voting for someone like Kucinich, because he is too short.

I think it's the natural laziness of the American electorate, yes. BUT..I think that was more our parents' generation. I think now it has become laziness TIMES disinterest.

For me, it was never stressed at home how important it was "when mommy went to go vote." I never gave two shits about politics until I had an abortion, and read in little booklets in the lobby of the clinic how that right was being eroded. THEN I woke up right fast and began voting Democratic the minute I could.

My mom was a middle class Republican who voted because she felt she had to. For the poor and uneducated, many have no clue how the system even works, and how it is destroying their lives. They just see their paycheck, and how far it DOESN'T stretch. They just let themselves be swept along by the system. Their parents never taught them how important it was either. It has just become this culture of disinterest. "If I ignore it, it will go away." When nothing could be further from the truth.

When I was volunteering for the Dean campaign, I found myself engaging complete strangers about politics. And for many of them, they became semi-interested when facts were brought up that mattered to THEM. I think this is also a failing of our educational system.

That hit home for me, because my 12th grade government teacher was that right wing former Texas state rep John Shields. Who would WANT to give a crap about politics when learning from the biggest loser in the state? He once took us to a trial in downtown San Antonio and got our fucking bus towed. The man was an idiot. And Shields, if you're reading this, you are lower than a sack of pus for taking all that money from James Leininger, you piece of shit!

But like you said...no one really takes an interest until it affects THEM.

bingo!

I post stuff about climate change, election fraud, etc. etc. on other sites and they go ignored and sink like a rock. WHY?

It's because IT DOESN'T AFFECT THEM DIRECTLY - YET. And when it does, they'll be suddenly enraged - AFTER it's too late!

People are too comfortable, too complacent, and too self-centered to give a rat.

It's not just lazy.

I really wonder at the emotional maturity of a good portion of our society as a whole. I've argued with 85 year old grandmothers that bitch and complain about their pensions, the cost of living - but when asked if they voted in the last election, it's as if you'd asked them if they were selling their bodies on the streetcorners. NO! Of course NOT -- WHY SHOULD I? is usually the answer.

Until we're ready to stop the knee-jerk *We're Number One* baloney and grow UP in a very real sense about WHO we are and WHY we are not the center of the universe -- we're screwed.

So glad you went with it and made this it's "own thread"..very poignantly true.

as I said before, if 45% isn't inspired to vote in those elections, they are never going to be inspired to vote.

You are right on here! Every freakin' election cycle I see a number of candidates who seem to think outside the box or bring even ONE NEW, FRESH idea to the table. They are invariably pushed out to bring us the blandest of the bland. And it starts with the stupid media for literally turning it into a horse race every year to get ratings, or money, or both or who knows what.

And every year I find myself voting for the lesser of two evils just like everyone else.

I mean, look at GWB. We all KNOW now how horrible he really is, but I have to admit during the 2000 primary, I looked at the list of Repukes and thought, "now that guy is really unelectable". He'd never run a business in the black without a bailout by some of Poppy's friends and I know how Repukes love money. But what happened? He "won" the whole kit and kaboodle!! "Twice" (note quotation marks).

Of all the Dems running last year, I thought Kerry was among the weakest. He was still better than GWB, but I did not think he was a strong candidate. And then look how interesting candidates (heck, even Al Sharpton brought some reason, humor, and occasional good sense to the debates) just dropped like flies in that stupid front-loaded primary season. By the time my state got to vote 6 weeks later, there were only 3 left from which to choose. Out of 10!!!

And I agree most Americans are stupid by choice and lazy, probably also by choice. That doesn't help much.
This is a great post. Thanks for putting it up there.

I can remember (starting 1968). K&R.

:hi:

but a lot shorter. It occurred to me as I was watching the rerun of last week's Bill Maher last night that it was such a shame Kucinich didn't really have a prayer--because I really like him. He is so refreshingly honest and straightforward. I certainly hope that I am proven wrong about his chances, but for the reasons you stated I am not very confident. Maybe whomever is elected will use him in a high position? That would be good too....
Actually, I really can find something about all the Dem candidates that I like. I know that's blasphemous around here,but I don't really care--I think we all need to step back and appreciate how good of a crop we have here compared to, oh, say 2004, etc. Not trying to slam on Kerry per se; but this group is really interesting.

Good post; very true.

this be a thread of its own should be commended!

Nicely said and I am 100% with you. It almost makes me want to hide my head in the sand like the others and just pay attention to what makes me happy. Can't do it. Won't do it. Besides, Dennis Kucinich needs workers.

K&R

There is an 80-year long political cycle that seems to coincide with several other cyclical sociological trends, at least according to a book I've read called Generations. Voter turnout was low in the 1920s, and according to the book I mentioned the 1910s and 1920s are equivalent to the period since 1984 (Raygun's re-election, the start of what the author calls an "unraveling" period). We are currently entering, if the author is correct, a period of left-wing political dominance, reform, and good voter turnout similar to the New Deal Era.

I'm not sure it's cyclical, as in a predictable, repetitive event over a given time period, like Halleys Comet, but certainly most of the conditions that existed in the US in the Teens and 20s are present now. Those decades were a time of massive accumulation of wealth by the top 1 percent, while the rest held starvation-wage jobs with obscene hours and lethal working conditions. The '20s "boom" was fueled by the same kind of lunatic speculation that keeps the Dow over 13,000, while everybody who isn't getting stock rich knows the system's broken in just about every way possible.

And, of course, the Great Depression followed, which forced people to finally examine the fundamental assumptions they held about how this country works, and for whom. And as soon as they began to question the basics of capitalism and how it works to enrich the few at the expense of the rest, a fairly significant socialist movement arose.

Seeing the potential threat such a movement posed to business as usual, FDR began putting together the New Deal, which was absolutely socialist in nature, but nobody gave a damn because the workers had work and the elites' heads remained attached to their shoulders -- unlike the justice they got in the French revolution.

Whether FDR was an altruist or a pragmatist I haven't a clue. Certainly his programs brought great good to a great many people. Also certainly, his programs prevented what could have been a powerful enough socialist movement to at least unionize the vast majority of the workforce, which would have given them much needed leverage next time the elites decided to tighten the screws.

Sadly, we're now a country of rugged individualists, compelled by culture to fight each other for the scraps the elite leave for the peasantry to squabble over. If by some miracle the lower 90 percent of the population can ever unite behind the idea that the upper 10 percent is the source of most if not all their problems, critical mass would develop for real, progressive change.

So I hope your cyclical theory proves true. If so, it's about damn time we had a little progressive legislation in this land infested by wingnuts and paleofascists.


wp

As he came up with a solution to a problem-he clearly indicated,
I do not know if this will work but if it does not we will stop
and try something else. None of that "I am resolute and strong
and we will do this.This is the Absolute Answer" as does GWB
and most Republicans.

He would institute a program, let it get started, then sen Eleanor
out to go among the people and find out if it was truly working.

He also had altruist leanings but was a Capitalist who saw
Capitalism Fail. The Great Depression was a world wide failure
and the Capitalist System Failed. Yes the greatest Democrat
FDR saved Capitalism and Democracy. He understood that a middle
class was essential to Democracy. He understood even Capitalism
cannot succeed unless the money is circulating throughout the
economy. He provided Government Jobs WPA CCC and others.
Money was circulating through Communities and finally we climbed
out of the Depression.

Jonathan Alter(ar?) has written a book FIRST ONE HUNDRED DAYS
(How FDR saved Capitalism and Democracy) Everyone of our CongressMembers
should read this to remind them of their Heritage as a Democrat.

accepted Small Group of HaveMosts and HaveMores and then
rest(HaveNots). The Small Ruling Class Theory (Business
and Very Rich pulling the strings.)

I have not decided on a candidate.

For purposes of this discussion. Watch how the TV Media
treat Edwards. They are doing everything they can to
stop him. Edwards has done unpardonable--He has dared
to mention the poor--use the word poverty. The Corporate
Media are compelled to get rid of any candidate who
even hints of "populism". Populism equals caring about
the poor to the HaveMosts and HaveHmores. Some Democrats
do not want to be made feel guilty. They went after Gore
because they got a hint of populism --sure they attacked
him on other things. Watch the hidden agenda. Concerned
that he sounded a little populist, they called a liar
Inventing the Internet, etc. Their loyaty to Corportate
Bosses comes first, if they wish to keep their jobs.

at least not completely. People have had 38 years of one conservative government after another from both parties and they've realized that no matter who gets into office, their pay will decline in purchasing power, the cost of their benefits (if they have any) will continue to be pushed onto their own shoulders, and that they'll continue to be completely powerless, with no government regulatory body particularly interested in the welfare of the people if it's going to cost the corporate "persons" anything.

It's more alienation than laziness. They've heard all the platitudes and they've seen them all betrayed again and again.

Plus, people here have absolutely nothing left to defend and nothing to believe in except what they heard in Sunday school as children.

The first group being just plain lazy - physically & mentally.

and borderline retarded. The majority of them are alienated by a bad system that has been hijacked by the rich and the corporate.

Yet turnout rates tend to be even lower for them.

or it is a lot simpler to vote. Why doesn't my change of address form re-register me, anyway? You see a much higher turnout in areas where people own their homes--not just because they are more involved. But they don't move and have to register again.

the polls for the last 20+ years and have yet to understand, why people who are directly financially affected don't put the effort into voting. The city and state always add items to the ballot that affect property taxes, sales tax (gross receipts tax), etc, yet people still make no effort to vote. They sure do whine, bitch and moan when their taxes go up though!

Democrats' Momentum Is Stalling
Amid Iraq Debate, Priorities On Domestic Agenda Languish
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/04/AR2007050402262_pf.html




As if all of the recent investigations are now being lamented by the very people that elected this Congress to do that very thing!!!

They don't even teach civics very well anymore, and if we're talking about econ classes, forget about it! The reason why people don't vote or vote against their own interests is precisely because they're so damn ignorant that they wouldn't know the US was being invaded by fascists until somebody kicked their door down instead of somebody else's, and by that time, it's already too fucking late.

The point of public education in America is to create obedient workers, not informed citizens.

anymore? It sure doesn't seem like they do. I remember having to read, study and discuss the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, Bill of Rights, etc. In senior year of High School you took an "American Government Class" Trip to Washington, D.C. for a couple of days. (I went to High School in the suburbs of New York City, so a trip to Washington was neither an epic journey, nor an unaffordable expense.) It's 40 years later and I still remember that trip!

Personally, I think education (Kindergarten through High School) has been deliberately neglected (financially and otherwise) and in serious decline in this country since the end of WW II. An educated electorate is not malleable nor wanted by the powers pulling the strings. They'd be much happier with 'American Idol' addicts.

I am also sick of a lifetime of walking into the voting booth and having to pull a lever for "the lesser of 2 evils". God, I am sick of that!

There is much that could be done (but won't!) It's tragic that someone who might be brilliant and wonderful but without a zillion dollars simply cannot run for high office in this country today. Restrict the insanely early start to the Primaries. Or have a National Primary Day no sooner than within 6 months prior to the actual election --- any state which wants to participate is welcome. Get rid of the Electoral College. Hold elections on a weekend, rather than on a working day. None of this will be done.

There was no field trip, and there was no lesson on what the parties are or their platforms. All you learn is the simple structure of the government, a run through of what the Bill of Rights are and maybe a quiz on it, and that's it.

You wouldn't learn for instance what would happen to the US economy if you dropped to zero taxes on rich people and pushed the burden onto poor and working class people, which is why most people here in Mississippi continually vote for Republicans.

of the curriculum in most public schools. If you want to learn anything about human psychology, sexuality, reproduction, evolution, the meaning of fascism and how it connects to our society - forget it. These topics are frightening to them. You have to augment your kids' education with some home schooling.

elementary and middle school without once participating in a discussion of anything going on in the world. No what we used to call "current events" at all. And guess what, if not for us discussing politics and issues at home, she'd be completely clueless - as are her friends.

It's all about memorizing a bunch of "facts" to pass a standardized test. And we live in a "Blue Ribbon" school district.

The way they teach history is a joke. In 5th and 8th grade they learn U.S. "History" - which starts with Columbus and ends at the Civil War. The school district is so into "art projects" - like create a civil war trading card with a nice picture of Jefferson Davis - that they move at a snail's pace and get bogged down. She'll be in 11th grade before she again encounters U.S. "History" and who knows if she'll ever once be taught that there have been Presidents and world-altering events after Lincoln.

Government/economics isn't mentioned until 12th grade - one semester each. It sends the message that these subjects aren't important. I attended the parents' night for incoming freshman awhile back and the PE coaches dominated the discussion with sports talk. That's what the parents were concerned with: "How can I be sure my kid makes the team?"

What the point of all this is escapes me. Supposedly, this district sends 98% of its graduates onto college - where they must arrive ill-prepared to do anything except shoot baskets and color.

Other parents have told me I should run for the school board, another joke. Those people are so entrenched as incumbants that they get re-elected based on name recognition alone. I am not making this up. One guy was on the board for 30 years. He had a stroke, was in a nursing home, couldn't attend meetings, and was still re-elected. When he finally died, his wife suggested keeping the seat open "in his memory" until the next election two years off - and they did! And no one gave a damn.

It's all fucking unbelievable.

Should voting be mandatory? If a person doesn't go vote, then access them a fine? Not sure how fines would ever be collected though. Maybe cross-check the voting register with a drivers license? If a person doesn't vote, maybe suspend the license? These ideas just don't seem 'American'. However, as someone said above, a lot of people don't vote unless it affects THEM directly. And mandatory voting definitely would affect everyone of voting age. Also, make voting day a national holiday.

Maybe we could get rid of the Electoral College for presidential races and base it on the popular vote so that you won't get punished for voting your conscience by having George W. Bush win because there are people like Ralph Nader running. If no one can gain a majority of the vote, maybe there should be a provision for a run-off race.

Maybe we could reform the structure of the US House of representatives such that proportional representation is instituted to break the two-party monopoly. Have run-off provisions for US Senate seats in case no one wins a majority of the vote in the first round.

Maybe we could institute mandatory public financing of all federal campaigns. If people are so sick of special interests, maybe it's time to get their money out of politics and end the relationship with big money.

As you said, make voting day a national holiday. These are what need to be addressed, in my opinion.

Neither party has been willing to touch these issues precisely because it would represent a loss of power for them.

For the House, I think proportional representation would work better because IRV has no real answer against gerrymandering. If a state has 10 seats in the house, than the seats would be awarded based on the percentage each party won in that state. If the Green Party won 20 percent of the vote in the state, it gets two seats there.

The seats are more numerous in the House, and proportional representation would get rid of gerrymandering as a problem. Gerrymandering isn't a problem in the US Senate though, as there are no such thing as US senate districts, only US house districts.

The bill of rights was just an add-on appeasement to a few of the more "radical" framers. Most wanted nothing to do with specifying peoples' rights against government intrusion or malevolence.

And just as the last two presidential elections were rigged, I feel in my bones that a new constitutional convention would inevitably be rigged in favor of the fascists/corporatists who are now running the show. But this time, instead of committing felonies every time they violate an amendment or three as is now the case, overwhelming government control would become the law of the land.

If we were to try and get rid of the electoral college, institute proportional representation and mandate public financing of all campaigns, I think the way to go is through the constitutional amendment process. I also think the right to basic health care should be spelled out in an amendment. Not that I think any of these things have a chance in hell of becoming law, but it's still worth a try. Things are so out of whack these days that women can't even get the ERA passed, notwithstanding that it's among the more sane and reasonable pieces of legislation in decades.

And again, you just don't want to open the flood gates and let the wingnut slime monsters have a say at a new constitutional convention. Just imagine the Military Commissions Act on steroids.


wp

For instance, we could stipulate that any delegate sent to such a convention agrees only to discuss the issue of proportional representation in the House, the Electoral College (keeping it or abolishing it), mandatory public financing of all federal campaigns, and making election day a national holiday. If the delegate does not agree, the state that delegate represents would be asked to replace that delegate with one that does agree to the ground rules. Anything else that is brought up will not be recognized.

This should keep the convention from being derailed by a whole bunch of other issues that have no relevance on the original ones stipulated in the ground rules of the convention.

Assume that many groups with widely varying agendas would all want to participate in such a convention. I can't imagine the left wielding enough political power to set the rules and resist what would be a massive PR campaign by the right for inclusion. And once they're in, it's prayer in the schools, anti-choice, good bye Darwin, flag burning amendments and everything you can think of that would result in general oppression and misery.

So I'll still go with what we've got rather than dealing with a potential monster. At least BushCo violates the Constitution when it taps phones or monitors emails, for which it's theoretically criminally liable. A new Constitution might just allow those practices, and hundreds more, that are now unconstitutional but would become the law of the land if the right had its way.


wp

This is NOT a good environment to do that, when the corporations are totally in control of everything and everybody at the top. We'd have a new constitution shoved down our throats (just like we do boring candidates) that advocates for everything we DON'T want, and that would NOT help the PEOPLE.

:kick::kick::kick:

and don't get me started on the electoral college, the systematic exclusion of third parties, etc

in front of hundreds of onlookers. A few years later his brother and another leader who was bad for business - so to speak, were also removed from the sphere of influence.

I agree with your sentiments. Kucinich, Nader, Perot and others who would ACTUALLY CHANGE THINGS are made to look unelectable, nutty and downright contrary to what the voters "want" when in fact, they are precisely what the voters need

Part of it is that we have had rather dull candidates. What drove the Kerry vote was alot of people voting against Bush rather than for Kerry. You look at the candidates the dems have trotted out the past 20 years. Mondale, Dukakis, Kerry, Gore(in 2000 he was dull). We really have not had the kind of candidate that voters want to take the trouble to register or go stand in line and vote.
No Roosevelt. No Kennedy.
And if we chose someone like Hillary, sorry supporters of hers, but, alot of dems say they are not going to vote at all. It will energize the right to come out. But, super suppress the left and so, turnout is not going to be very big.
08 has the potential to be a huge turnout and election. Dems are so ready. But, we need to get someone that people are going be jazzed about and want to register and go to the polls. Want to vote. Be up and excited.
So, it will depend on who is the nominees and then, you will see if more people come out. primaries may be much larger than election day if we end up with Hillary.

jury duty as a reason for people not voting. I used to be a registered voter, but I sick to death of dealing with freaking notices to appear for jury duty every few months, so now I'm flying under radar and staying off the voter registration list.

:thumbsup:

There are also many people who by election time are just sick to death of the onslaught of negative ads, attacks, and mudslinging. They are turned off to the entire process.

I have come across many people who feel compelled to vote, and yet do not lift a finger to educate themselves on the issues and the candidates.

> "But they don't participate in the community..."

That's nonsense! I bet they go to their local high school football games! :patriot:

Or... did you perhaps mean some kind of WIDER community? :sarcasm:

Remember that 'Political Compass'?
http://www.politicalcompass.org/questionnaire

I found that I was just barely left of center on economic issues, and a bit Libertarian as well.

So how difficult would it be to create a 'Which candidate do you support?' compass?

My answer; Not difficult at all.

Ask a number of questions, using the same basic psychometric system, compile the associative factors, and tell the subject which candidate most reflects their own, personal views.

If this hasn't been done yet, I have a feeling it should be.

I would have little trouble drawing up the template.

Anyone?

After signing up for five separate magazine subscriptions, a degree program at University of Phoenix Online, applying for a mortgage refinance... all "Required fields" to fill out in order to get your results, I said "Fuck that."

Not to mention the limited dimensions of the 'test'...

No, this should be something that anyone can complete in 5-10 minutes and that they can trust with no strings attached or hoops to jump through. Something like that, like the 'Political Compass', would be Ideal for giving the average American a good Idea of who really stands where they do.

All you had to do was scroll down below all the advertising to see your results. Or click the link at the top that said "skip to results."

When fewer people vote, repukes are more likely to be elected.

The repukes have a vested interest in Keeping the number of voters very low. With less turn out, there is a greater chance of repukes being elected. Why do you think they have caging lists and scare tactics that keep voters out of the voting booths? Why did Blackwell try so hard to keep the number of people voting in Ohio low?

There is a concerted effort by the repukes to prevent large groups of people from voting and it works. While they actively discourage certain groups of people from voting they encourage their ugly base to vote with hate inspired causes.

Someone here on DU once posted the question of why are negative adds so popular and successful? But the truth of negative adds is that they discourage voters. It doesn't increase the number of people voting for the guy who puts out the negative add. It decreases overall voter turnout. It disgusts people and makes them think all politicians are immoral crooks so they don't vote. The few people the negative add appeals to are motivated to vote, while the majority of people are disgusted by the adds and don't vote.

When fewer people vote, repukes get elected.

When fifty percent of the political machine is actively trying to prevent people from voting, your turnout on election day will always be low.

And when they are speaking before a group of conservatives (such as at a church), they tell them how important their vote is. In front of a general audience, they never talk about the importance of voting.

The 2 party system sucks, hard. I know very few people who really like the entire agenda of either party, or even of most of the third parties. We need 20 or 30 parties, all forced to listen to and compromise with each other. THEN people will vote because they will have someone to vote for who will actually mirror their views.
Just my two cents.

This sounds really silly. They are prepared for one office or maybe two. But for the rest they have absolutely no idea.

One of my neighbors is a Dem who has been working the polls for over 30 years. He says people come in to vote and then in the middle of voting they turn around and ASK HIM who to vote for. Of course he doesn't tell them.

If they stop and ask him while he is out raking leaves, of course, he'll talk to them. But they ask him "how do you know all this stuff?" like its some great mystery that they have no access to.

I had to leave yesterday and didn't get to see this until this morning.

I'm glad to see that you recognized our mandate and made your post its own thread. :D

Thank you.

:hi:

Good work and words in your post.

...things have always been this way clear back to the Revolutionary War days.

The United States was a corporation before it was a country.

Dennis Kucinich is never going to be President of the United States. That's just how it is.

"Slavery has been with us since Roman times" "If God had meant man to fly, he'd have given him wings" "You can't fly faster than the speed of sound" "You can't fight city hall" "The world is flat" "Home computers are just a passing fad"

Oh yeah, and "That's just how it is"

I wrote this about D vs R, but it also works for our own primary.. The "cute" guy is not always the best choice

..........................................................



America...Pick the "boring, geeky" guy

Posted by SoCalDem in General Discussion

Sat Nov 04th 2006, 03:44 PM

The real difference between democrats & republicans is something that most women understand.

Every girl over 12 or 13 knows how it works..

We ALL want the "cute" guy..the one who's usually dismissive of us..the one who treats us like shit, cheats on us, doesn't call when he says he will, hits on our best friend..

Time after time, we forgive him because he says the words we want to hear, or promises to "be good"..he seems remorseful, and he gives us gifts..

But

he always cheats on us again, and yet.. he's just so darned cute..he's got money, everyone likes him, he drives a great car.. we just want him..dammit..

Lurking at the back of the classroom, there's a guy who is not nearly as attractive as "cute guy".. he's smart, he's thoughtful and he's trying his best to get our attention. he LOVES us, but we won't give him the time of day.

Why?

"he's too serious"
"he's a dork"
"he's not fun"
"he is always studying"
"he wears white socks"
"he's teacher's pet"
"he's not athletic"

and of course, there's always "cute guy" saying what we want to hear, dressing like a million bucks, making us promises..

What eventually happens is that some of us wise up and grow up. We find that "geeky guy" will grow up also, and given some attention and time, will grow into a guy we can finally see as "smart, cute guy"..

or some of us manage to grab onto the original "cute guy" and end up being treated like shit by him for as long as we stay attached to him.

Republicans are "cute guy"..they have all the answers..all the soundbytes we love to hear. They tell us what we want to hear. Their plans are always great on paper. Everyone (media) loves them. they dress well, they speak well, they impress us.

Democrats are "boring, geeky guy".. They actually dig into issues and try to understand them. They tell us things we NEED to know...not things we want to know.

Republicans : "Fire ..pretty.."
Democrats : "Fire...burn you "

Ted Bundy was a "cute guy"


just sayin'


disclaimer: Some democrats (JFK comes to mind) can be BOTH..

Republicans are rarely both

America is so fucked under the current status quo Democratic leadership. If only we had real balls. Obviously the left is always correct in the long run it just takes so long for the rest of em to catch up to us.

i read a post the other day about all the folks in congress who did NOT vote for the authorization to invade iraq. why should i bother to vote for someone who did? obligation? hillary, edwards, et al have it both ways: authorize the war, then run as anti-war candidates. lovely set up. an illegal *resident gets two shots at stacking the court with right-wing ideologues and the democrats sit on their hands. creeping fascism? who voted for the patriot act without even reading it? a whole bundh of dems. who authorized invading afghanistan BEFORE investigating 9/11? a whole bunch of dems. which party, even though in power, has failed to follow up on the anthrax attacks against members of their own party? some of us understand at a conscious level, and some intuitively, that it's a game being played by cynical imperialist whores. tweedledee, tweedledum, or don't bother....hmmm?

Children need to feel the spirit of the Founding Fathers all around them and have civics taught by people who are excited about it and pass that excitement off to our children to inspire them to become involved in the Democratic process. People do not vote because they do not feel inspired anymore ( and I can't really blame them,) and by us not teaching civics/voting procedures/the Constitution etc. to our children in a specific curriculum designed to spark that flame, we will only continue the viscious cycle of indifference and the continuation of a status quo that stifles that spirit. They will only emulate what they see, or rather, don't see. And I think above all, we have to tell truth to our children. They will not know otherwise what they are up against now unless we do that and let them know that we stand with them in shaping a new world for all of us. We do need a Renaissance to take place in this country, but that will only happen now by our own hand.

rather than the free-fire zones our city schools have become. It's another of those insoluble chicken-egg problems: Did the schools go to shit and that visible decay caused massive student apathy and changed the basic function from education to baby sitting? Or did the last few generations of surly, unmotivated and well-armed kids finally destroy the institution of public education, and we're now seeing the results of that systemic failure in voter apathy and/or identification with idiotic paleofascist and/or fundie ideologies?

If I had a school age kid, I'd figure some way to get him/her into private school. Not because I'm an elitist prig, but because if I want the kid to have a reasonable chance to acquire an education about something other than fashion, celebrities and small arms proficiency, private school is the only remaining option.

I went to a Jesuit high school, which was absolutely detestable at the time -- particularly since this was San Francisco in the late '60s and the school was right on the edge of the Haight-Ashbury district, which I marched through daily, up and back down Stanyon Street with my Jesuit-length hair and collared shirt. Of course, the first order of business upon graduation was growing my hair to my navel and getting rid of any collared shirts. But the education I got has served me very well indeed, and taught me enough scholastic discipline to get through grad school, so I thank my parents for the financial sacrifices they had to make on my behalf.

I know several grade school and high school teachers who are basically just putting in their time, staying on for the paycheck and the benefits and the pension, and trying to cope with near-universal hostility on the part of the kids toward the world in general and school authority in particular. Most say they try to find one or two kids who aren't completely lost and direct their energies towards them. Things are, of course, different in wealthier school districts, and the weaponry is certainly more expensive.

Anyway, after decades of neglect and underfunding, the school buildings are falling apart. So the physical environment's already depressing. Couple that with the near certainty that kids from these schools, absent some incredible luck or unique skill set, are going to be flipping burgers, selling drugs and settling into the bleak life of the chronic underclass.

But the Pentagon gets all the money, and schools get some fraud called "no child left behind," which is a horrible idea because it discourages creativity and independent thought, while forcing teachers to "teach to the test." This would be bad enough, but the vile bastards pushing it conveniently forgot to properly fund it. So we have a fraudulent educational standard that rewards rote learning and punishes deviation from the norm, and the miserable cheapskates can't even find the money to produce all these little Stepford automatons. You'd think they'd be ecstatic to fund a system that's geared to turn out doctrinaire republicans.

I don't know. I'm getting more pissed and depressed just typing all this. I don't have any idea how to actually convince a 14 year old gang banger wannabe that reading is among life's great pleasures, history is vital to understanding the present, learning is a value in and of itself and doesn't need a price tag to justify it, and that school really is the best time of life.

That's a pretty hard sell; I know, because I heard the same platitudes and knew they were bullshit. I could see that the slimy and corrupt got all the money and drove the cool cars; I could see that the sleazeballs and lizards were the ones laying down the $20s and tipping big; I could see that the church was all about using a naive belief system to con the congregation out of their hard-earned money; I could see that school was all about social control and education was only an accidental by-product.

Kids today see all this, and they have the added pleasure of knowing their world is going to hell as rapidly as possible and their lives will be immeasurably poorer and more desperate than those of us boomers. Advertising and PR tell them to shoot for the stars, while their own life experience tells them to shoot for the head in case the target's wearing Kevlar. Nice fucking world we've handed them.

Anyway, this is just another one of those semi-coherent rants that pass for analysis in my own addled brain. If you've read this far, consider consulting a specialist.



wp

The French have a 2-round system. In the 1st round, voters can vote for any candidate without so much fear their vote will be wasted. The 2nd round is between the two candidates with the most votes in the first round. This system is obviously a lot more exciting and meaningful than what we have.

either hard-core robber baron corporatism or kinder, gentler corporatism, and who basically think things are fine as they are with just a little tweaking.

Voters become disillusioned when new administrations lead to more of the same-old same-old (which was why Clinton was such a disappointment after the initial euphoria about getting rid of Poppy Bush.)

I've noticed over the years that voters LIKE feisty candidates, whether of the right or the left, who say what they think and mean it.

We need a democracy in the USA.

...because it's so close to my assessment of the situation.

compared to abortion getting a bus towed doesn't sound all that bad

Lack of education isn't the only reason for not voting. It is true, empirically, that people with lower levels of formal education vote less than those with more. It's a clear relationship, borne out by years of data: the more years of schooling you have, the more likely you are to vote. This isn't necessarily a causal relationship, however. It could be that people with more schooling earn more and have more at stake in the community. It's also true that voting (and political participation in general) increases as income increases. Also, old people vote at higher rates (until you get to be very, very old indeed, at which point the rates decline due to physical infirmities). We have all kinds of data that enable us to predict who will vote. Often, these things go together, and the effect is cumulative, so that we see poor young people with little education voting at the lowest rates. As Democrats, our challenge is to get typical nonvoters to the polls, which means people who have low levels of education, poor people and young people.

Formal modelers, however, suggest that something else is at work. According to the simple model of voting developed in the 1960's, a person's chance of voting is equal to the benefits they get from voting times the chance that their vote will be the decisive vote, minus any costs associated with voting. According to this model, no one will vote, because the benefits are likely to be small, the chance of casting the deciding vote is very small, and the cost of voting is high (one has to take time away from work, register, be informed of the issues, get to the polling place, stand in line, etc.). Accordingly, this model famously predicts no voting. Countless dissertations have been and will be written about this. (There's also a whole literature on why the US is at the bottom of the industrialized world in voter participation.)

That this ever got so many political scientists worked up says a lot more about political science than anything else, given that we don't observe the predicted nonvoting behavior. At any rate, this model does do something other than to simply assign blame: it enables us to understand why voting is observed at such a low rate, given that the stakes are so high. People don't think they will cast the deciding vote. They are almost always right in this. What individual nonvoters fail to understand, however, is that this is a collective activity. We don't vote as individuals, but as groups. When I fail to vote, assuming someone else will vote for me, I am asking for something for nothing, because I don't want to take the time to vote, but I will seek to enjoy the benefits of having my preferred party/officials in power. Naturally, as Democrats, we resent people who do this, and I'm sure Republicans feel the same way about nonvoters on their side. Anyway, we therefore seek to impose penalties (usually nothing more than our expressed ill will) on nonvoters, hoping to increase the probability that they will vote next time.

We need to do more than that. We know that door to door campaigning works. We need to do that, first to get people registered, second to get them to vote. Political engagement is something that should be taught in school, but encouraging it is also one of the major functions of a political party. As activist democrats, this is the most effective thing we can do. It's more effective than anything we will ever write on DU, it's more effective than any check we can write. We need to be going door to door for our candidates and our party, and we need to do it starting just about now.

For those who may not remember, soon after his being put on the ticket, he started a series of public speeches where he said in effect that only religious people have morals. Fortunately, he eventually shut up, so I did show up to vote against the guy who established Jesus Day in Texas. You can see my dilemma though.