Voting

I'm not sure about other countries, and feel free to chime in about it, but in the US, at best we get about 50% of the population to turn out and vote during Presidential elections which is an absolute disgrace. What can seriously be done to remedy this?

Would over turning the electoral college and thus forcing candidates to actually campaign across the entire country help? Would capping campaign spending help? Would banning attack ads help? How about having actual debates instead of pre-packaged "town hall" meetings already filled with bias audiences?

What do you think?

Take care all.

I say, screw it. If someone is so apathetic about where this nation is going that we have to get down and beg them or tailor the whole process so as not to offend them, just to get them to get off their butts and vote, than I'd rather that person not take part in such important decisions.

I agree with Redneck. Of course, politicians will never do that, because they know that they can win by turning an election into a soap opera of soarts.

Why does half the nation not care though? That's the real question.

In my opinion, apathy OF apathy only makes the cycle more vicious.

Take care all.

The Captain, you may be interested in reading a book called The Vanishing Voter: Public Involvement in an Age of Uncertainty, written by Thomas E. Patterson of Harvard's JFK School of Government. It addresses the issue of low voter turnout in the US from a relatively neutral political stance, and observes what actions of the major political parties, the media, and the public at large contribute to this alarming trend. The final section does include some ideas that might possibly help to increase voter turnout, although the actual implementation of these ideas certainly has not yet happened.

Thank you, I shall definitely look into that book.

What were some of the ideas proposed, if I might pry?

Take care all.

Well, I haven't read it since last summer, but one proposal I found interesting was the idea of making certain changes to the primaries; namely, replacing Super Tuesday with a concept that the book called Ultimate Tuesday. Under the Ultimate Tuesday system, one primary would be held in a given state (I believe starting in New Hampshire was preserved) every week or so, leading to an "Ultimate Tuesday" where primaries would be held in the remaining 46 states. This would theoretically allow candidates with less money to focus their funds on individual states, allowing them to compete with better financed candidates. By the time Ultimate Tuesday arrived, attention garnered from results in the initial states would hopefully give smaller candidates (if worthy) a chance in the ultimate runoff. This would also greatly shorten the length of the primary campaigns. Excessively long campaigns were often cited in the book as a major source of voter apathy.

That's a fascinating idea.

Take care all.

Thats a terrible idea. All states should go on the same day. People are too easily influenced. If anything the media should be withheld from reporting on anything so that people are not influenced and make their own decision with out feeling the need to go with the crowd. How many people win that stupid caucus that actually go on the win the primary? Far too many. I rest my damn case.

The idea's not flawless, certainly, but it makes more sense in the context of the other ideas the book proposes. Some of your ideas, if I recall correctly, were addressed by the book, although I think they might have been deemed too difficult to implement. I'll glance through it again when I'm home for the summer and see what it suggests.

Why do you feel it's a terrible idea? It would certainly be a bridge from the current process to one you suggested at least.

Take care all.

I think it is terrible because for something like this it isn't like there really needs to be a process. If you are going to jump from what we have to that other one with 5 weeks of primarys then why not just go all out on one day from the start? Its a waste of time to transition.

The biggest problem I see with apathy is that we think if we let those in charge make all the decisions, we can just go on living our lives like it doesn't matter. It DOES matter, and people need to realize that if they don't take interest in what's going on around them, we're SCREWED. Voter apathy's been a major concern of mine for quite some time now.

I think one of the major problems is uninspiring candidates. I mean, look at our Presidential election. We've got Bush, for whom I could go on for days on end citing what he's done that much of the general population doesn't agree with. And then the Democrats nominate... John Kerry!? It's like they all got together and said "all right, the strategy here is to nominate someone who has no chance of beating a President who's already done a great deal that can be exploited and used against him in the campaign. All clear? Let's go!"

I'll use my own state as an example of something else I dislike. Here in Washington, our governor election is still being contested. It literally came down to several hundred votes, and right now, while Christine Gregoire (the Democrat) is technically Governor, the Republicans are doing all they can to unseat her. And they may just succeed too. Now, when I was voting for either of them, this is what I had to go on:

According to all the radio and TV commercials, (pick one) Christine Gregoire/Dino Rossi are the ultimate devil incarnate whereas (pick one) Christine Gregoire/Dino Rossi are said to be related to Jesus Christ, Martin Luther King, Ghandi, AND Mother Theresa. That's quite literally all I had to go by. They'd run their little adds about how someone's going to do such and such, and it didn't really matter because THEY WERE BOTH ACCUSING EACH OTHER OF THE SAME DAMN THING. "I'm a Democrat, but this time I'm voting for Dino Rossi because he doesn't hate small business like Christine Gregoire does." "I'm a Republican but this time I'm voting for Christine Gregoire because she doesn't hate small business like Dino Rossi does." And yes, they actually were doing that. It was disgusting. I don't care what your opponent can't do. I want to know what you CAN do.

Frankly, if we want more voter involvement I think we need to clean out all of this two-party trash and start all over again. Or at least dig someone up in Washington who is at least moderately interesting. I'm suggesting we don't dig up anyone who died after 1980.

And that is what makes Obama so appealing because he doesn't attack the other canidate and talks about what he can do. Being from IL, I got that feel from him. He talked about the issues and what he would do. He didn't have a very big advertising campain from what I could see. If he can't help out the country and IL as sentor in his first term then I wouldn't expect him to bother running a second and maybe try for governor of IL instead. He is actually a polition that genuinly wants to help the people. He did get lucky when he got elected also.

During the primaries he went up against some big names that fell apart due to scandals. Then the same thing happened in the election against the initial republican opponent. He was still favored to win the State Senate but was far from favored to win the Primary until all those other alligations came up.

I talked about how he won because I feel that this is probably why most of the "better" politions don't win is because they don't have the finanical funding and don't really have any backstroy to talk about or scandal if you will. So the media ignores you and you fall through the cracks.

Its late so I hope what I feel makes sense.

Why do you relate it specifically to apathy? Personally I don't believe in not going to vote because of such ideas people make of people who don't vote. You may not vote, for example, because you don't believe any party represents you, or you are against the electoral system, or against democracy itself.

I prefer voting a party we have here in Spain, called "Citizens in white". Their only electoral promise is to leave the parliment seats they may obtain empty, as a sign of protest against the current Spanish system. I don't think they will ever win any seat, but it would be great if they did. I believe it is a way of voting against the system and prooving it at the same time.

In the recent British election, I was faced with a choice between three parties, who all, more or less, occupied the centre. The Conservatives were slightly to the right, The Liberals slightly to the left. Where's the choice?

And as I don't trust any of the parties as far as I can throw them (apart from the Lib Dems, who seem okay), I didn't see the point in voting.

I just don't see the point. The way I see it, if 40-50% of the population don't vote, then maybe someone, somewhere will realise that Things Aren't Right. Maybe instead of parties, we'll get independents. Maybe we'll get a party who listen, believe in what they do and don't break promises. Maybe we'll get something a bit more radical.

To clarify, voting, even for a candidate with no chance of winning is not apathy. NOT voting at all is apathy.

Take care all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Captain

To clarify, voting, even for a candidate with no chance of winning is not apathy. NOT voting at all is apathy.

Take care all.

---

No, not to vote is a possible consequence of apathy, and a reason coming from it, but apathy is not the only reason for not voting. And you can be voting without even thinking, with not really caring, just for the hell of doing it: that's apathy too.

In Australia, voting is mandatory. You get a fine (not a huge one) for failing to vote. Thus, we regularly get 80% or higher turnout.

Well I would hate to see that(mandatory vote). Personally even if I was of age for the Bush-Kerry election I would not have voted. Both were "*fools", and I didn't see any real potential in any other canidate.. therefor no vote.. give me something to vote for, and I will gladly do so, but I won't support those that are "*fools".



*I am using fools in a very very unhashed form and as a general insult to intellegence and of the ability to perform the actions of the presidency.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skogs

In Australia, voting is mandatory. You get a fine (not a huge one) for failing to vote. Thus, we regularly get 80% or higher turnout.

---

O_o


That's plain sick.

You can choose to vote for no candidate, though. Or spoil your ballot. But there are enough parties kicking about there's something to choose from. Plus, you don't neccessarily waste your vote on a minor party, because you list candidates in order of preference.

61% in Britain.

Hmm, I don't live in America, so I can't be sure of what I say. Although, I thought Eminem's "Mosh" video would spark up more people to vote.

The UK's recent election had it's lowest turn-out.

I vote . . . but I prefer to stay out of other people's politics.

America's most recent election had the highest turnout (in numbers, not percentages) in our history, even though many people were disgusted with both candidates. And it was still, what, barely 100 million? Many times, people must vote for what they consider to be the "lesser of two evils". The candidate I voted for, I didn't like him all that much, there are some things I disagree with him on, and I would have voted for somebody different in a primary--but, that was the candidate, and I voted for him not because I wanted him to be President, but mainly because I didn't want the other guy to be President.

I also noticed that in Iraq, voting made people targets--not just the process of voting, but being a voter and being temporarily "marked" ("inky finger" ;) ) and everybody being able to tell that person voted for a few days. And still, what was it, seventy-something, eighty-something percent went out and voted? I was out on a route-clearing mission that day, and we must have seen 1500 people walking to polling stations--some dozens of miles away. Iraqis feel so strongly about their new freedom that they're willing to literally risk their lives and walk ten or twenty miles, maybe more, to vote, and us lazy-ass Americans can't turn off Oprah and drive two miles to our local library? It's sickening.

However, I do agree with The Redneck and nik0tine on this. If somebody's too lazy to get out and vote...good. That's one vote that shouldn't be cast.

I also agree with Behold the Viod -- This last election, as I have said, wasn't about the better candidate, it was about who wasn't the worse candidate. But I think the Democrats just put somebody up that was easy to push over so that they wouldn't have to worry about an incumbent come 2008 when they put Hillary up. Mark my words...and I wouldn't doubt Condi will run against her.

So, in order to cure this laziness, what we need are better candidates perhaps?

Take care all.

I think that people who care about their country and the people living in it, will vote. In a country where politics are a major part of what's going on, and important decisions have to be taken every single day, the vast majority of the nation's populace want a good leader in charge, and would also want to pick that leader themselves.

Here we usually have 80-90 percent of the people voting, which makes sense considering how critical things are here. When the the burning question is whether to increase tax on coffee, it's obvious why most people won't vote... but when the outcome of the election can determine how people will live or die, they'd better vote.

To get better candidates having a primary where every state goes on the same day would be a good step in that direction. Far too often people follow the mob mentality in a primary instead of voting for who they want to win because it would be a "wasted" vote. But also in the primary you would get a lot more media coverage that way and you could even get the media to help re-enforce the idea that the primary is voting for who you want. Its not like a real election where that person will make decisions. That would help gain some better candidates I think.

I recently conducted a poll amongst the people at my school for a newspaper article. For the most part, everyone polled is registered to vote and does vote (or will be registered soon, in the case of the Running Start students), yet pretty much the exact same number of people feel that the government does not represent their opinions. I see this as a problem, and we need to do something about it pretty soon lest our entire system degenerate even further than it already has.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

America's most recent election had the highest turnout (in numbers, not percentages) in our history, even though many people were disgusted with both candidates. And it was still, what, barely 100 million? Many times, people must vote for what they consider to be the "lesser of two evils". The candidate I voted for, I didn't like him all that much, there are some things I disagree with him on, and I would have voted for somebody different in a primary--but, that was the candidate, and I voted for him not because I wanted him to be President, but mainly because I didn't want the other guy to be President.

I also noticed that in Iraq, voting made people targets--not just the process of voting, but being a voter and being temporarily "marked" ("inky finger" ;) ) and everybody being able to tell that person voted for a few days. And still, what was it, seventy-something, eighty-something percent went out and voted? I was out on a route-clearing mission that day, and we must have seen 1500 people walking to polling stations--some dozens of miles away. Iraqis feel so strongly about their new freedom that they're willing to literally risk their lives and walk ten or twenty miles, maybe more, to vote, and us lazy-ass Americans can't turn off Oprah and drive two miles to our local library? It's sickening.

However, I do agree with The Redneck and nik0tine on this. If somebody's too lazy to get out and vote...good. That's one vote that shouldn't be cast.

I also agree with Behold the Viod -- This last election, as I have said, wasn't about the better candidate, it was about who wasn't the worse candidate. But I think the Democrats just put somebody up that was easy to push over so that they wouldn't have to worry about an incumbent come 2008 when they put Hillary up. Mark my words...and I wouldn't doubt Condi will run against her.

---

This is the problem though. As long as there are only two candidates, you only have to be slightly less bad than the other guy. You don't have to believe in good ideas or have done anything. Quite frankly, if Hillary runs in '08 enough people already *hate* her that the Republicans could run a loaf of bread and the loaf of bread wins. That's just not a good way to do things.

I'd let any candidate who was on the official ballot in all 50 states debate. This would make the campaign about ideas. They can't just start demonizing. They'd have to turn 3 other people into satan incarnate. Wouldn't work. So instead they'd have to say what they intend to do.

So with the SS mess it would run something like this

Libertarian: I'd just nix the whole thing.
Republican: private investmant accounts
Democrat: We'd put it in a lockbox
Green: We should raise the SS tax, and then do a means test so that only the truely needy get SS.

See what I mean. Now chances are greater that someone said something that you can get behind. So people would have more interest because someone says things that they agree with. Another thing is that you won't be able to take a poll and change your opinion, as you can today. You are fighting off the other 3 people and chances are that someone else is already where the polls would lead. You change your position and then 3 people are pointing at you yelling "flip-flop" and you lose all credibilty.

Unfortunately only the Republicans and Democrats have the funds to do that on any large scale. The Green Party and the Libertarians can complain all they want, but people won't listen because they won't be able to buy enough advertisement space.

That opens up a whole other can of worms regarding campaign funding reform, but it's a debate that also warrents mention. What can be done to lower the gap that is in existence, wherein only the elite may run for office, thus limiting the potential candidates? Should there be a max cap on how much a candidate can spend? The amount of money that a company can donate to a given candidate? A cap on the amount of commercials a candidate can air? A complete ban of attack ads? Better debates?

What are your thoughts on this?

Take care all.

Government funding only to those who agree to be injected with sodium pentothol so that they always say what's on their mind.

Seriously though I'd probably say a certain amount of money goes to a single campaign budget. That everybody shares equally. That'd probably solve our problems. A bit socialist, but I think I can tolerate it in this instance.

I recall reading a report somewhere that said in order to run for President, and have even a chance, you need $100 million dollars. That's a staggering amount, but makes sense you when look at the amount of commercials and the like that pop up, most of which have little to do with solving problems and more to do with crafting an image which may or may not even be based in reality.

Take care all.

You should only be able to spend $50 million when running for president. That leaves you having to get your message out in ways other than TV ads. It gives other people in Libertarian, Independent and Green parties more of a chance. So from the primaries to election day you can only spend so much. Currently it is 75 million from your party's convention day to election day. The republicans totally pissed me off with that one because they held it way too late and as an effect of that states changed their law so that GW could be on the ballot. Because of this I say from the primary to the Election no party can spend more than 50 mil on running for president.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by edczxcvbnm

The republicans totally pissed me off with that one because they held it way too late and as an effect of that states changed their law so that GW could be on the ballot.

---

...umm... The party convention for the incumbent is always held later than that of the challenger, there's nothing they did last election they either party hasn't done when they get the chance too.

Well some states did have laws that said the nominee must be named by a certain date which happened to be before the Republican Convention, but that's all pretty irrelevant anyway.

And the Republicans hate Hillary for the same reason they hate Bill: they have amazing political skills and present a very tough challenge. The Republican Party doesn't hate people like John Kerry because he was eminently beatable. In general, the more strongly negatively the other party reacts to a candidate, the better that candidate is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eestlinc

And the Republicans hate Hillary for the same reason they hate Bill: they have amazing political skills and present a very tough challenge.

---

You have somewhat of a point, but it's slightly inaccurate. Conservatives don't like the Clintons because they're liberal, dishonest, manipulative, conniving, and corrupt as hell. I don't think anybody would "hate" Hillary more if she ran for President. It might seem that way, because more people would voice their opinions on her during campaigning, but it's not something that they just thought up because she's hard to beat.

I do see the point I believe you were trying to make, however--more is (usually) put forth to top those opponents that present a challenge, and when less is needed (as in, when somebody already knows they'll probably win), less is provided.

But on the other hand, I believe this past Presidential campaign was the costliest in american history, and more people voted than any time in American history.

" and more people voted than any time in American history."

That's because there are more people living in the country than ever before. One of the most misleading facts that came out of this election is that Bush garnered the most votes of any President and Kerry the second most, but that was because there were more people than ever before alive in this country, not because more people voted than ever before. The numbers were still at around 50% of the population.

Take care all.

True, but I was referring to strictly numbers. Still, I believe a higher precentage of the population voted in comparison to other recent elections, but not much higher.

Using numbers instead of percentages in relation to modern statistics can actually severely skew the results. The elections, for example--it's not like the masses turned out to vote, because I'm sure there have been plenty of elections in the past where more of the population (at that time) participated in the voting process. Or, for another example, gas prices, which at this point are "the highest in history", but when inflation is factored in, still lower than gas prices were in the 70s.

Indeed. Context, with regards to so many things, especially numbers, is vital.

Take care all.