http://apnews.myway.com/article/20061105/D8L6TAVG0.html

Why Do So Few People Vote in the US?
By Calvin Woodward
The Associated Press

Sunday 05 November 2006

Washington - Government of the people, by the people, will be missing a lot of people Election Day.

It's a persistent riddle in a country that thinks of itself as the beacon of democracy. Why do so few vote?

Compare U.S. voting with foreign voting and it's not a pretty sight. Americans are less apt to vote than are people in other old democracies, in new ones, in dangerous places, dirt poor ones, freezing cold ones, stinking hot ones and highly dysfunctional ones.

Even that theocratic "axis of evil," Iran, has bragging rights over the United States in this regard. So does chaotic Iraq, where an estimated 70 percent of voters cast ballots in December parliamentary elections.

The pitched battle for control of the House and Senate in Tuesday's election has raised hope that voting will rise above its usual anemic levels. But competitive races are not reliable predictors of turnout and doubts exist about whether Republicans will be as fired up as Democrats and whether independents will vote with their feet or their seat.

As in other aspects of American life, the people who run elections work to make things easier for everyone. Yet they achieve little more than blips in increased turnout, if that.

Participation, paradoxically, is highest in states where making it to a polling station can be misery on a wintry day. Minnesota, Alaska, Maine, New Hampshire, South Dakota, Wisconsin and Wyoming are among states that lead the nation in getting voters out, and they put the Sunbelt to shame.

About 40 percent of U.S. citizens of voting age population cast ballots in nonpresidential year elections.

Despite the competitive nature of the 2000 presidential race and the certainty of having a new chief executive no matter who won, just more than half turned out. In 2004, a polarized year when everyone remembered the near dead heat four years earlier, turnout climbed over 60 percent - edging a little closer to the likes of Iran, Iceland and Somalia.

I've been debating this question in another forum populated with young voters. Many of whom have adopted heirs of apathy. I call it the "why bother-itis". Many of them claim their vote doesn't count and argue what will be missed by their absence, being that there's so many other people who do vote. I reply: What is an election but a collection of individual votes.

Some of them argue that it is more effective to write Congress members than it is to vote. I reply: Voting for people is different that writing people. Apples/oranges. What good is an un-cast vote to an election as to what an unwritten letter is to Congress? They both are ineffectual? Why argue in favor of one and disavow the other?

Some people say, "What the problem is, is that the people who are elected don't listen to the people who elect them." If you don't exorcise your vote, then you never did elect them, so why should they listen to you? And if by not exorcising your vote, the level of frustration you feel is reflective of what you blindly accepted through faith, cast through the votes of others.

I remind them, a society deserves what it accepts. Even as it's Government. If they accept the right, the privilege to not vote, then they accept what is given to them. Even so as much as being enslaved by their Government. Because they opted out of the process. And in doing so, failing to participate, is a failure to account for what is given back to you and therefore leaving you with little room to complain.

I've heard the same complaints, even from older people.
What's one vote? Big deal.

I then remind them that there are choices we all make and generally we tend to bunch up into ideological groups. We see things on the tube, in movies or things we read in books, or conversations with friends, and from these various contacts we form our opinions about everything, including politcs.

Now, imagine for a moment you're a part of a group, a group that has no membership but includes millions, and many of you individually feel that voting is a waste of time? Now, imagine another similer group who's basic views and values are much different than yours, but a much larger percentage of them do vote, even if it is a hassle.

This means that you, who decided it wasn't worth the time, have to put up with these values of others you don't agree with, becoming a part of your life style. Not by choice, but because these others voted and elected people who agree with the values that you do not agree with.

In other words, because you did not vote, and millions just like you who feel the same way who also did not vote, you get to be pissed that American solders are dying in Iraq, you get to be pissed that Abortion issues are being redecided, you get to be pissed that the Repugnants are so crooked and inept, you get to be pissed that the rich get richer, while you get job security at Wendy's.




If you don't think it matters, take a look around your world and then ask yourself, what would you like to be different?
And then reconsider the value of your one single insignifiacnt vote.

I';ve read there are 100 other countries ahead of the United States in voter turnout. I'm actually surprised that 60% showed up in 2004, thats amazing.

I think that the country has made the politics of running a country or state confusing enough to the avg. voter that they dont know who to vote for. I'd say that lack of effort on the majority of Americans part to be aware of the critical issues, and the stand those running for office have on them, leads to apathy.

Of course, this is also partly orchestrated by the contestants themselves who resort to mudslinging as their deflection of being held accountable for their actions.

We need full transparency from our government and the Bush Admin. and the current GOP are amongst the most secretive, and in dire need of oversight, seen in decades, or longer.

Thats why it is so important that all their cover ups are exposed to voters, it motivates people.

I've been thinking for a while about this.
I think now that voting should be compulsory, and failure to vote for any reason other than death should be sanctioned by 6 months charity work in the soup kitchens or clearing snow from the sidewalks in front of retirement homes.

This goes against everything that I believe in, about liberty, individual responsability and rights, but the stakes are too high now for apathetic and disinterested voters mumbling "My vote won't make any difference..."

Ignorant, apathetic and disinterested and distracted non-voters are what has led the World to the brink of Armaggedon, and these people are DIRECTLY responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths and the unleashing of a nearly unstopable War-Machine. That sounds harsh. Tough shit.

Democracy is not a game, and everyone MUST participate in the creation of a better future for Humanity, even if it means levering their fat asses out of the comfort of their Easy-boy or tearing themselves away from their Playstation for a couple of hours to save the planet.

The PNAC and their sock-puppet breezed in on the idiocy and abstention of a public too numb to think. This will either sound the death-knell of Democracy, or will be it's wake-up call to arms !!

To the urns, citizens, to the urns !!!

Yeah, but what are those silly things compared to POWER?


Precisely the same argument the Bush administration used to shred the Bill of Rights.


Nope, just a mite overblown. If everybody did vote, what makes you think the Republicans wouldn't win? And if they did, would you be blaming people who did vote for "Armageddon?"


Again, what makes you think they would vote your way? They would probably vote for whichever party promised to repeal the Mandatory Voting Act.


And your response to a call to arms is to institute a draft? How very Nixonian of you.

Hi Jubal,


"Precisely the same argument the Bush administration used to shred the Bill of Rights. "

Yeess, but it's not quite the same thing. My reasoning is to try to instill in distracted voters the importance of voting, even if you and I both know that it's a semblance of free choice. Whereas bush was attempting (and succeeding... ) to suppress freedom.

"Nope, just a mite overblown. If everybody did vote, what makes you think the Republicans wouldn't win? And if they did, would you be blaming people who did vote for "Armageddon?"

I don't mind who wins, as long as it's a fair fight and voted in by educated and informed voters, because they have an OBLIGATION to vote would tend to mean that they have an OBLIGATION to be informed (subjective, I know...) By this criteria I don't think the current Republicans would win anything. Ever.

"Again, what makes you think they would vote your way? They would probably vote for whichever party promised to repeal the Mandatory Voting Act."

Ha ha, true ! Make it compulsory to make them responsable !! Erk, how awful !!

"And your response to a call to arms is to institute a draft? How very Nixonian of you."

Like I said, this idea goes against my own personal philosophy of individual responsability for your actions, and my global outlook on what's likely to be our near future, based on historical study, but I am looking aghast at the results that negligence in a Republican Democracy has wrought, and if it's not quite Armageddon time just yet, you have to admit that its closer now than it has been for a long time, and the rifts that the Busheviks have opened up are going to need a LOT of cementing over !

I have a pimple that just appeared on my ass when you insinuated that I was Nixonian ! Euuugh !

With all due respect, monsieur, your reasoning would appear to be forcing people to the polls under the threat of criminal sanction. Your saying that this is not suppressing freedom is positively Orwellian.


You've demonstrated how you will enforce the obligation to vote. How will you enforce the obligation to be informed? A literacy test, perhaps? Ask Southern blacks how that works.


As soon as you say "I believe in freedom, but-" you don't need to say anything more. Just as Senator McCain justified his own torture by voting for the Torture Act, you have justified everything the administration has done by saying there are things more important than freedom.

Jubal, is it Orwellian to insist that people inform themselves and then carry out an act of citizenship that, in an ideal world would be optional, but everyone would do it anyway, BECAUSE it is an act of citizenship ?

"Criminal sanction" is a bit harsh. My thinking goes more on the lines of carrying out a compulsory act of good citizenship to compensate for a negligent act of bad citizenship. That doesn't make much sense when you think about it, from a legal point of view, but learning about the pros and cons of a functioning society never struck me as being easy, or something to do when you "had time" or "could be bothered".

Shit, I don't like anything being compulsory or enforced by governments, but I can't see a simple way out. The 50% of American voters who sat on their asses and didn't bother to carry out a PRIVILAGE granted to them by the Framers, and the revolutionary thinking behind them, resulted in a near-fascist, war-mongering oligarchy of dorks seizing power in the USA, supported by a minority of American citizens and Diesucka voting machines. That strikes me as being a dangerous state of affairs for every sane Human on the face of the Planet. No ?

"Things more important than Freedom..."
No, nothing is more important than Freedom. BUT (yup, there it is !! The "But"...) there is a vast difference in the actions of the Busheviks and my suggesting that it ought to be compulsory to vote in a Democracy, to ensure full participation of the people in THEIR government. A benevolant dictator may sound nice in theory, but I've never seen one of those.....

Nope, it's Orwellian to say that forcing people to do something is not suppressing their freedom.


OK, civil sanction. And what happens if you violate a civil sanction? Criminal prosecution.


You seem to like compulsory voting (compared to the alternative).


You seem to persist in thinking it would be any different if 100% voted. When I queried you about that, you said only that the obligation to vote implies the obligation to inform oneself. I would suggest that many, possibly most, of the people who do vote don't bother to inform themselves. What makes you think people forced to the polls would inform themselves any better than people who go to the polls voluntarily?


In other words, your personal agenda is more important than freedom, even if the agenda is only one item long. Precisely the Bush administration's argument - their agenda is more important than freedom.

By the way, what will you do to people who go to the polls but don't vote? It happens in countries that have mandatory voting, like Australia.

The vote should not, and cannot be forced.

This is a democracy by and for the people, and if the people don't care enough to participate,
then they get what they deserve.

They vote blank. If 55% of the voters vote blank, then new elections are called, and it will be neccessary to find out why any of the parties (hello multi-party system !!) where unable to appeal to a majority of an INFORMED AND ASSUMING PUBLIC.

As a parent, if you discuss the voting process, and talk about YOUR responsibility to vote, and how YOU have to do this thing, the children you raise will grow up with YOUR values INCLUDING YOUR INCLINATION TO VOTE.


It's true. Children are empty computers and as parents, daily, we stuff them with operating software.


Teach your Children, teach them to vote by voting!

I don't have any strong feeling about compulsory voting. I doesn't seem to have hurt Australia (or help it). Just don't call it anything but what it is -- suppression of freedom.

I agree 100%, Sky.

But if the people are kept in a state of ignorance and deception, if their basic voting rights are stripped away by subterfuge or error, and if easily manipulatable machines can be made to elect whoever the Diesucka operators want, wouldn't it be better to ensure that EVERYONE voted. Afterall, everyone of a certain age and statute pays taxes. If they can pay taxes, surely they can vote ?

Ignorance is no excuse. And not caring is ignorance.

It is up to the people to be educated. If the people WANT to be educated, who's gonna stop them?



Check this article from Alternet about REAL people power.
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/43934/

I thought it was apathy. Learn something new every day.

It is a suppression of freedom, and I'll never call it anything else. But what else can you do in a legal framework to get people to wake up and vote, vote for the party that will bolster the schools, create the conditions for forming a population of informed and educated young women and men who will then proceed to establish a free, fair and uncorrupt system, based on Democracy, but much better informed. OK, so the elites will get the push, but is that such a hard thing ?

(...Utopic visions of an Ian M. Bank's style "Culture" civilisation start swirling around in Le Rousseau's head....)

The status-quo will get a shock, but if it creates a fairer type of Democracy, (with compulsory attachments..) at least until we are ready to shrug off the old restraints and embrace a wider Humanity and social-system, then it's a restriction of freedom that I can support.

Removing Habeus-Corpus was NOT a suppression of Freedom that I can support. If encouraging or pushing people to vote means they understand what has happened, then maybe the creeps that were responsable can be removed without bloodshed.......

Democracy, quoi.

Apathy and ignorance tend to be bedfellows, no ? If you are ignorant about something, you tend to be apathetic towards it. For example, If you UNDERSTOOD what the PNAC were up to, then you would not tend to be apathetic towards their slithering ambitions.


And if you still were, then it would mean that you are a fish. In a goldfish bowl.

Bloop.

I believe the Soviet Union had that kind of democracy.

Nope. The propaganda said so, but the reality was WAY different.

I think you've now made it clear that you not only want to dictate THAT people vote, but HOW they vote as well.

Ha ha ha,...er, no.

I honestly don't mind which way people vote. I may not like their choices, may disagree with their politics, but if they have made informed decisions based on available verifiable facts, and have the best interests (in their opinion...) of the Nation as a whole, who am I to disagree if their man or woman is elected by a majority of my fellow citizens ?
If they vote for a fascist because his propaganda is the best and he has the best hair, well, it just means that the people I vote for need to pull their socks up and convince the voters that voting for the wrong type of person is a mistake. And its my job to try and educate or inform the voters who voted for an error.
Can you honestly say, hand on heart that GWB and the cabal that ushered him in, were the best thing for America ? Even with hindsight ?

I like the adage "May the best person win."


Maybe it doesn't apply to politics, but it would be nice if it did.

That doesn't seem compatible with -


Can you reconcile them?

Rousseau, I got the same idea that Jubal did from your posts. That you are assuming that compulsory voting would ensure Democratic victories.

"vote for the party that will bolster the schools, create the conditions for forming a population of informed and educated young women and men who will then proceed to establish a free, fair and uncorrupt system, based on Democracy, but much better informed." I could be wrong, but it appears to me you moved from compulsory voting to compulsory voting "for Democrats".

And that if we don't elect Democrats?

"If encouraging or pushing people to vote means they understand what has happened, then maybe the creeps that were responsable can be removed without bloodshed......."

Are you saying Democrats in office by any means necessary?

At times you have backed off of these rather radical statements, so I'm not exactly sure where your going with this. That compulsory voting will result in fairer elections?

Ahh, I see how you interpreted my posts.
It wasn't actually how I should have worded it,... tough. What I wanted to imply is that if you have a choice between flat-earthers wanting war and progressives wanting to bring the whole human race, without exceptions, someplace better, and you have a fair and balanced voting system that asks simply EVERYONE to vote, for the red, for the blue, or white, and they have access to all the information, I like to think most people will make a choice for a future that doesn't involve fascism.

I can reconcile mysef quite happily. It's, to use an analogy, a bit like a ballgame. If the Blue team wins, fairly and squarely, because they were better, faster, stronger, more on it than the Red team, then that means we need to review our game plan and come back better and firing on all cylinders than ever before. And we need the spectators to cheer us on.
But if the Blues are cheating, or distracting the spectators with pom-pom girls with big hooters, and rigging the matches with the Umpire, does that mean we should take it lying down, even if our team have finally upped their game and are clearly superior to the Blues ?
All I ask is a fair, level playing field and attentive spectators to cheer for the best team. Blue or Red, or the Pom-pom girls, may the best team win.

Never forget, Cap'n, the gulags were operated by the political heirs of people who genuinely wanted to improve the lives of the Russian working classes.

Hi Captain,
No, its not EXACTLY what I'm trying to say.

I would like a Democrat victory, because I think that a change has got to come, and I don't see any other alternatives out there. The incompetence and arrogance of the Republicans has removed their claim to being able to govern the Worlds most powerful nation.

I would like to think that compulsory voting would up the game from the politicians side, leading to a better quality voting public, more informed and more demanding of their representatives. If this means the Republicans get in because they are the better party, have the most coherant policies, and have a leader with the best hair, well, thats Democracy. It means the Dems or the Alaskan Fur Seal Party will just have to try harder next time, and REALLY work at being Politicians instead of waiting for the party in power to boob up and then savage their carcass...

I would like to think that compulsory voting, even if it's a blank vote, at least means that citizens GET INVOLVED. I may not like the result, but I have the choice of staying and working towards improving for the next election, or leaving the country. What happened in the USA was that half of your country stayed home. I would like to say that they deserve everything that they get, but I'm not that vindictive. But I believe if they had been compelled to become less apathetic, and they expected, no, dammit, DEMANDED, more of their representives, then your fine Country wouldn't be shoulder deep in the shit now.

Jubal, you know your history. You should also know that the Russian Revolution was hijacked and flown into the Siberian tundra. Fascism has many faces, and the difference between the icy wastes of the Gulags and the kinder, gentler fascism sliding up your legs in the US is the amount of after-sun lotion you need to apply to stop the burning.

I would much rather put on sunblock to prevent the pain that comes with being burnt, and be informed about the dangers of too much exposure to the sun BEFORE I go out......

FREEEEEEEEEEEEEDOM!!!

Just 2 cents here......

To change the condition of apathy, we need to change the way elections are viewed. Get Big Money and Big Business out of the process. Limit the contributions to candidates and the amount a candidate can spend, let the little guy think he has a chance. Paper trails Paper trails Paper trails... . Election Day= National Holiday. I still hear people say they don't have time to vote..WTF ? Term Limits. Don't let the politicos get comfy, they turn apathetic to their constituents needs. Eliminate Lobbyists. Jack Abramoff anyone? Let ALL parties participate EQUALLY. Equal airtime, equal debate time. Give people A CHOICE not the same two parties who have dominated for almost a century, eliminate plutocracy.

Just little tid bits floating through my head.

People voting now aren't neccesarily educated on anything. I was raised Catholic, many people I know will not vote for someone who supports abortion. Period . End of story. They won't even look at the opponenet no matter how qualified, or what other issues are at stake.Maybe it should be termed Ignorance. Our fundie friends vote the same way. People are only going to focus on what they want to. There is enough info out there now for people to be educated about ALL the issues, they choose not to be. A law is not going to change that, busing them to the polls is not going to change that. People don't want to be involved, thats just the way it is.

Jubal...you look dashing in plaid

Och, hoots, who's yon wee man ?

Caledonians don't need to worry about being burned, they're blue, and it takes ages to get one white enough to burn properly......see you, Jimmy !!

I was feeling a bit blue.